From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux) Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 01:32:39 +0100 Subject: [GIT PULL] Multi Cluster Power Management infrastructure In-Reply-To: <20130407002342.GJ17995@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20130328134808.GD16765@e102568-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20130405094159.GH17995@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20130407002342.GJ17995@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <20130407003239.GA25225@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 01:23:42AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 09:30:58AM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > Now, I'm currently on holiday. I'm going to be on holday until after > > > mid-April. I'm not pulling anything until then. I'm not applying anything > > > until then. I'm not even reading this mailbox - and given current mail > > > rates at 300-400 messages per day, I will *not* be reading back over a > > > fortnights worth of email. > > > > That is also unacceptable. Again, you are the appointed ARM kernel > > maintainer. You have to plan a backup when you are away. If the load > > is too much, you have to delegate. > > Thank you for showing what a self-centred individual you are. > > Tell me, how do I delegate the physical act of scanning through email > to someone else to find out those emails which I may want to reply to? > > Now, just take a moment to do the math. At 400 messages per day, with > an average of one minute a message, that's 6.5 hours. Four days of that > and you're looking at 20 hours to catch up - realistically two days. > Meanwhile another 13 hours of messages (800) have arrived. So that's > another day and a bit of nothing but scanning, during which time more > than 6.5 hours of messages have again arrived... > > I've said this before, and I've done the above before - over a much > longer period. Other kernel developers do this too - they will actively > remove their mailboxes after returning from a vacation because its > too painful to catch up by reading mail. Linus will also do the same - > he will require things to be (re-)sent when he's returned from vacation. > > Yet _you_ seem to think that this is not acceptable behaviour? Sorry, > I disagree - it's the _only_ sensible and sane way. And the last thing to mentoion is that this is the last night before I drive back home, and I've just spent the last *two* hours dealing with your crap emails. It's now 1:30am. If I have an accident as a result of this lack of sleep then I hold you responsible for it, because obviously your patches are far more important than anything else in the whole damned world.