On Wed 2009-11-04 00:29:47, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> Hi Johannes,
>
> > > > I just think that it's a matter of courtesy that should be independent
> > > > from the release cycle to ask the author/maintainer by default, not as a
> > > > second thought ("unless [...] have other solution"). You can always CC
> > > > Linus and ask him to revert if you don't get a response.
> > > >
> > > > What's wrong with that? It doesn't actually delay the action, but it
> > > > makes the discussion much more friendly and cooperative instead of
> > > > giving the author and maintainer the feeling that their opinion only
> > > > matters as a second thought.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think you are reading too much into who was addressed directly and who
> > > was "only" CCed...
> >
> > Maybe. But it seems to be happening pretty often recently that people
> > first ask for a revert and then for a fix, ignoring any thought that
> > might have gone into a particular commit...
>
> I have to agree here. It happens why too often lately. And this needs to
> stop. Otherwise why bother with subsystem maintainers? Just send
> everything to Linus directly and have him to review every line of code.
>
> Dmitry, this is not against you, but the proper way would have been to
> just mail linux-wireless about it and you would have gotten the same
> response to it than you got by including Linus and LKML. This blind CC
> to LKML is not helpful. It starts confusion and just increases the load
Yes, lkml cc *is* helpful, as he's probably not the only one hitting
that problem.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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
