* Marcel Holtmann <marcel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Linus, > > > > no questions that it needs fixed, I agree with you. However just blindly > > > reverting something, because it fixes it for one or two people, might > > > have side effects that causes more problems than the revert would > > > actually fix. > > > > Stop whining. Really. > > > > Everybody understands that it should be fixed. That's not the question. > > > > But it should be fixed _quickly_. In this case, I have a bisection report > > FROM TWO DAYS AGO. And I'm still kicking myself for not just reverting > > that piece-of-shit commit then, because I spent the time to look at the > > oops and the commit, and could tell that it was crap. > > > > Instead, I _did_ wait for the subsystem maintainer to get around to it. As > > a result of waiting, I've now wasted time for a lot of other people. > > I do have a patch in my inbox from Johannes from 4 days ago that fixes > this issue. > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=125697124819563&w=2 > > So what is the take away from this now? Do you wanna have Johannes > step over John and Dave and send such a patch directly to you? The problem as i see it is the kind of answer Johannes gave when the bug was bisected to by Jeff Chua two days ago: Subject: wpa2 hangs v2.6.32-rc5-402-gb6727b1. Revert 7d930bc33653d5592dc386a76a38f39c2e962344 fixed it. [ <1257151742.3555.165.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ] ... | | On Sun, 2009-11-01 at 23:18 +0800, Jeff Chua wrote: | > wpa2 (wpa_supplicant) hangs v2.6.32-rc5-402-gb6727b1. | | Explain? | | > Reverting 7d930bc33653d5592dc386a76a38f39c2e962344 fixes it. | | Certainly not a good idea, will break when your AP denies association. | | johannes Unhelpful, defensive, in denial. Plus that you tried to berate Dmitry in this particular thread about the revert was pretty bad form too IMO. _Anyone_ who went through the unnecessary, avoidable cost of having to do a bisection of a 3 days old commit merged at around -rc5 time is in his full rights to ask for a revert, straight from Linus if he thinks so. No ifs and when about it. So IMO you are showing the wrong kind of attitude for a post-rc5 regression, by a _wide_ margin. The right kind of attitude would be: "Oops, my bad - thanks. I've queued up a revert." or: "Oops, my bad - thanks. Does the attached patch fix it? If not we'll revert it." Furthermore, your 'hey, nothing happened, we fixed it after all' argument is just a forewarning that you learned nothing and such avoidable incidents could repeat in the future. Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
