Re: linux-next: manual merge of the msm tree with the arm tree

[Daniel Walker <dwalker@fifo99.com>]

On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 19:32 -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Daniel Walker wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 18:35 -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > 
> > > > git show 08a610d9ef5394525b0328da0162d7b58c982cc4 | ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl | wc
> > > >      58     163    2169
> > > > 
> > > > That's the patch we're actually discussing too. It's about one CC per
> > > > file modified.
> > > 
> > > What is a mailing list for, then?  Why are you subscribed?
> > 
> > I'm subscribes to review code .. Do you read every patch that cross the
> > arm list?
> 
> No, But I do read every email subject, and most patch messages.  Only 
> those subjects I know for sure I have no interest in I do delete right 
> away.
> 
> And being a human I sometimes screw up and let something I should have 
> paid attention fall through the cracks.  When that happens I simply fix 
> the issue after the fact and send a patch, and then life goes on.
> 
> If you don't want to actually follow the mailing list traffic, you can 
> at least filter it by flagging those messages that contain a patch which 
> touches one of those files you do care about.

I can say that I know for a fact that people don't read every patch, or
every email, or keep track of every single thread. I don't think it's
reasonable to expect people to do that. there's too many email, too many
threads, too many discussions etc ..

This discussion isn't really about that. It's not about people reading
every single patch, which we know they don't do. This is about conflicts
in -next.

These patches caused conflicts in -next .. What more could I have done
to prevent conflicts coming from another tree and patches that appear
not to effect me? Even if I read all the patches, and threads, it still
seems unreasonable to expect maintainers to predict conflicts not coming
from their own tree's.

Daniel