From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the perfmon3 tree
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:31:29 +0100
Message-ID: <1227691889.4259.2871.camel@twins>
References: <20081125210319.35b2d189.sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
	 <20081125102234.GA4281@elte.hu>
	 <7c86c4470811250640v4417fa4fs196f0d0bea136a45@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20081125153345.GA20733@elte.hu>
	 <7c86c4470811250836k2f798c21pe4766a565a6231ab@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20081125165118.GF22504@elte.hu>
	 <20081126140032.72d86f17.sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
	 <20081126033318.GE8242@elte.hu>
	 <7c86c4470811260032n64d69b04w5762e5f6cbd0cff9@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20081126084604.GN26036@elte.hu>
	 <20081126010022.63049908.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from viefep18-int.chello.at ([213.46.255.22]:28653 "EHLO
	viefep18-int.chello.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750797AbYKZJcB (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-next@vger.kernel.org>); Wed, 26 Nov 2008 04:32:01 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20081126010022.63049908.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-next.vger.kernel.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, eranian@gmail.com, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@mailshack.com>, the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>

On Wed, 2008-11-26 at 01:00 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:46:04 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> 
> > _Especially_ if 
> > then the linux-next integrator also plays stupid about basic kernel 
> > workflow questions ;-)
> 
> He didn't.  I suggested to Stephane and Stephen that we get this stuff
> into linux-next for a shot at 2.6.29 and that the collective 'we' make
> an extra effort to get perfmon over the hump and merged up.
> 
> You missed that email, missed the presence of perfmon in linux-next
> and repeatedly chose to not review the perfmon patch series when it went
> past.
> 
> So here we all are.

It just seems to me that CC-ing the intended 'we' at that point would
have saved a lot of grief.

Stuffing 2.3k lines of code in without the maintainers ACK is not
something we do each day, and I can understand them getting miffed about
that. I think every maintainer would consider such an action plain rude.