From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] libata: add CFA specific identify data words Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 16:28:17 -0400 Message-ID: <49E3A061.7070400@pobox.com> References: <200903032029.29073.sshtylyov@ru.mvista.com> <49E36F3F.6080907@ru.mvista.com> <49E37385.6070506@pobox.com> <200904132142.49279.bzolnier@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:39014 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751084AbZDMU2a (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Apr 2009 16:28:30 -0400 In-Reply-To: <200904132142.49279.bzolnier@gmail.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Cc: Sergei Shtylyov , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > As I see it, there was absolutely no need to rush things -- I simply didn't > get to processing newer submissions yet and I would just push Sergei's patch > in the next IDE pull request (which happened on March 13th). That is an IDE-centric perspective. It was a cross-tree depedency, and _I_ should not need to wait for you, particularly when you are constantly complaining about lacking time for IDE maintenance. > Simple reminder/query about the patch status would be more than enough but > instead you wasted time for everybody by splitting libata part from Sergei's > patch (without updating patch summary+description which I had to fix) and > later forgotting about it. Moreover instead of simply pushing forgotten > part yourself you requested Sergei to resubmit it and at the same time you > tried to put the blame about the whole situation on me. The onus is always on the submittor to monitor their patches, resubmit, etc. It is simply not scalable to constantly ping submittors, keep track of their individual development schedules, etc. Jeff