From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the v4l-dvb tree with the arm-soc tree Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:46:24 +0000 Message-ID: <201201111646.24731.arnd@arndb.de> References: <20120111133146.990e2b7115c9fa80e8fc3234@canb.auug.org.au> <201201111450.02798.arnd@arndb.de> <4F0DB16B.3010302@atmel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.8]:51847 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750970Ab2AKQqa (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jan 2012 11:46:30 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4F0DB16B.3010302@atmel.com> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Nicolas Ferre Cc: Guennadi Liakhovetski , Olof Johansson , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, "Wu, Josh" On Wednesday 11 January 2012, Nicolas Ferre wrote: > I am so astonished and sad about all this! I have the feeling of having > done exactly what Guennadi and Olof had asked me to do: What I get at > the end: people having a bad feeling about my work, not expected merge > conflicts which annoy everybody (only for a ridiculous amount of code), > my patches delayed and a comment saying that I cannot handle simple > dependency... > Nice result! I'm sorry for accusing you, you are right. You did exactly what was agreed on in the mail thread, I just reread the history. My impression is that Guennadi simply didn't know what he was doing when he sent you a patch based on a branch that was clearly not stable. > - Guennadi did not want to take SoC/board code in his tree > => I had to take those lines of code through at91/arm-soc breaking the > patch series and allowing the introduction of an out-of-sync merge This was probably the first mistake. It would have been trivial to handle all this if we had just stuck the same commit into both trees. > I have understood and approved all the reasons for the requested > changes, of course. But for which gain? > > Ok... well, it looks like a massive incomprehension which took us time > and ends up by wastefulness. Agreed. How about if you rebase the few other (non-ISI) patches that I had in arm-soc onto v3.2 and send me an updated pull request so I can send them on? There's no reason to hold them up. Arnd From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:46:24 +0000 Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the v4l-dvb tree with the arm-soc tree In-Reply-To: <4F0DB16B.3010302@atmel.com> References: <20120111133146.990e2b7115c9fa80e8fc3234@canb.auug.org.au> <201201111450.02798.arnd@arndb.de> <4F0DB16B.3010302@atmel.com> Message-ID: <201201111646.24731.arnd@arndb.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wednesday 11 January 2012, Nicolas Ferre wrote: > I am so astonished and sad about all this! I have the feeling of having > done exactly what Guennadi and Olof had asked me to do: What I get at > the end: people having a bad feeling about my work, not expected merge > conflicts which annoy everybody (only for a ridiculous amount of code), > my patches delayed and a comment saying that I cannot handle simple > dependency... > Nice result! I'm sorry for accusing you, you are right. You did exactly what was agreed on in the mail thread, I just reread the history. My impression is that Guennadi simply didn't know what he was doing when he sent you a patch based on a branch that was clearly not stable. > - Guennadi did not want to take SoC/board code in his tree > => I had to take those lines of code through at91/arm-soc breaking the > patch series and allowing the introduction of an out-of-sync merge This was probably the first mistake. It would have been trivial to handle all this if we had just stuck the same commit into both trees. > I have understood and approved all the reasons for the requested > changes, of course. But for which gain? > > Ok... well, it looks like a massive incomprehension which took us time > and ends up by wastefulness. Agreed. How about if you rebase the few other (non-ISI) patches that I had in arm-soc onto v3.2 and send me an updated pull request so I can send them on? There's no reason to hold them up. Arnd