Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the arm tree

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:

> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 01:06:52PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:40:56AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > >    maintainers (and not assume lack of ack after 24 hours means acceptance), or 
> > > 
> > > Wrong, 72 to 96 hours.  Sunday to Wednesday/Thursday.
> > 
> > Not that this is really material (the argument is pretty much the same even had 
> > you waited 3 days), but you are already wrong about the 'Sunday' part, because 
> > you posted it to lkml on *Monday* 13:27 GMT:
> > 
> >         Message-ID: <20110509132738.GB16919@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
> >         Mon, 9 May 2011 09:27:52 -0400
> 
> Sigh.  So you're only looking at the _second_ posting of them, not the first.
>
> Here's the message, minus the patch.
> 
> | Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 19:24:07 +0100
> | From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
> | To: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>, John Stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>,
> |         "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> | Subject: i8253 clocksource consolidation
> | Message-ID: <20110508182407.GN27807@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
> | 
> | Ralf, John, Ingo, hpa,

I did not get that mail, at all. It's not in my spam mbox either.

This pretty much explains why you assumed us informed and should explain to you 
why i was surprised by your way of handling the patch :-)

Thanks,

	Ingo