Hi Marcel, * Marcel Holtmann <marcel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Ingo, > > > > > > 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. > > who said 'hey, nothing happened, we fixed it after all'. The fix for > this issue is 4 days old and was already on the way to Linus. And I > remember the first response was that this got fixed already and that the > patch is going to Linus. Well, what formed my opinion was the first response to Jeff Chua's bisection result - see it above, i quoted it in its entirety. Thanks, 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
