From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Martin Steigerwald Subject: Re: [PATCH, 3.7-rc7, RESEND] fs: revert commit bbdd6808 to fallocate UAPI Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 10:37:56 +0100 Message-ID: <201212061037.56597.Martin@lichtvoll.de> References: <1353366267-15629-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20121206011402.GB27172@dastard> (sfid-20121206_101846_967501_50CDB52C) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Linus Torvalds , Dave Chinner , "Theodore Ts'o" , "linux-fsdevel" To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Am Donnerstag, 6. Dezember 2012 schrieb Linus Torvalds: > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Dave Chinner =20 wrote: > > And for changes to syscalls? That's something that must be peer > > reviewed because we are going to be stuck with those changes foreve= r > > as we can't undo them at a later date. It doesn't matter who made t= he > > change in question, I would have done exactly the same thing.... >=20 > The thing that people are complaining about is exactly the reverse of > this. It's *protecting* us from making mistakes, and doesn't actually > add any new interfaces in itself. > > This is why I'm so annoyed with this stupid thread. It's been going o= n > forever, and reverting that change WOULD BE OBJECTIVELY A BAD IDEA. See, thats where you have a problem with "reality". It seems you cannot accept the fact that some developers disliked the=20 process in which this change was pushed. It seems to be that you want t= his=20 thread to vanish in thin air immediately. But unfortunately it didn=B4t= =2E So while the process generally is fluid, I agree to that, it wasn=B4t f= luid=20 here. Or would you call this fluid here? I accept the fact that a decision has been made. And I am not deeply=20 enough into the technical matters to have to continue discussing it. I=20 also think all arguments have been said. The process has been the way it is. Noted. For the future there is=20 potential to do it differently with less churn involved. Will you, Ted = and=20 others involved take the chance? Up to you entirely. And depending on w= hat=20 effect you want to create. BTW: I do not buy into your tough guy number. Scare someone else with=20 that, if it makes you feel better about yourself. So thanks for the=20 factual stuff that you delivered after your first post to the thread. --=20 Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7