Re: [Xenomai] 3.5.7 "I-pipe: could not find timer" (Was: Re: Kernel OOPS during regression tests)

[Philippe Gerum <rpm@xenomai.org>]

On 01/16/2013 10:48 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2013-01-16 10:41, Philippe Gerum wrote:
>> On 01/16/2013 09:44 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> On 2013-01-16 09:02, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>> At the same time, upstream should not pull or pick in
>>>> a way that makes life harder for downstream.
>>>
>>> Philippe, in the future, please keep your public tree up-to-date,
>>> ideally at a daily base. I'm seeing commits there that were done locally
>>> more than a week ago. Only publishing your state will avoid the problems
>>> you faced with integrating our changes.
>>
>> No. If I don't publish, there must be a reason.
>
> This approach doesn't work very well - to state it carefully. Push you
> stuff at least into a public "next" branch, one that may be rebased /
> reordered without warning. That allows us to prepare for what is under
> test, maybe pick up arch-specific changes into the subsystem queues. And
> don't complain about conflict if you cherry-pick subsystem patches
> without dropping a note to the author - or was Gilles aware of your
> private queue?
>

You are off base, this has nothing to do with random cherry picking, or 
any private queue I would maintain: none of these have existed. Besides, 
it's not about integrating my changes in the reference tree - I had 
almost none recently - but Gilles', and many of them came from other 
sources he merged into his local queue.

Please, we have been working reasonably successfully with our current 
workflow for the past ten years now, so we had some time to understand - 
even if our very limited brainpower made this quite a challenge - the 
basics of distributed development.

What happened is a misunderstanding between Gilles and myself on the 
presence of a pending pull request, nothing more, which eventually led 
to an out-of-sync pulling on my end. Since this happened when several 
people were pushing stuff to Gilles, this triggered my warning to the 
list, so that everyone involved may know that things stopped going as 
smoothly as usual. Rest assured that under normal circumstances, Gilles 
is very well aware of what I'm working on daily, and conversely. I 
understand your willingness to work the right way now that you recently 
committed to maintaining the x86 branch, and this is appreciated.

On a more general note, the situation changed because we have been 
receiving more patches from more authors in the last weeks than we used 
to get, and conflicts follow the same trend. So yes, for this reason I'm 
going to open a 'next' branch or something alike to be periodically 
merged to the reference core branch as a fast forward.

-- 
Philippe.