From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the arm tree Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 13:06:52 +0200 Message-ID: <20110516110652.GC19837@elte.hu> References: <20110513080634.GA13647@elte.hu> <20110513083738.GA19733@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20110513092646.GK13647@elte.hu> <20110513213640.GB30539@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20110516073144.GF24836@elte.hu> <20110516074230.GI30539@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20110516091744.GB12325@elte.hu> <20110516091927.GK30539@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20110516094056.GA25039@elte.hu> <20110516100750.GN30539@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:54982 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754869Ab1EPLHX (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 May 2011 07:07:23 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110516100750.GN30539@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, John Stultz , Jacob Pan , Glauber Costa , Dimitri Sivanich , Rusty Russell , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Chris McDermott , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk * Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:40:56AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > maintainers (and not assume lack of ack after 24 hours means acc= eptance), or=20 >=20 > Wrong, 72 to 96 hours. Sunday to Wednesday/Thursday. Not that this is really material (the argument is pretty much the same = even had=20 you waited 3 days), but you are already wrong about the 'Sunday' part, = because=20 you posted it to lkml on *Monday* 13:27 GMT: Message-ID: <20110509132738.GB16919@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Mon, 9 May 2011 09:27:52 -0400 How hard can it be for you to look up the dates of the events before yo= u accuse=20 others of not listening? Then you committed/amdended it on Tuesday 7:20 GMT: commit 3490f584b9ba5a0b6f63832fbc9c5ec72506697b Author: Russell King AuthorDate: Sun May 8 18:55:19 2011 +0100 Commit: Russell King CommitDate: Tue May 10 08:20:54 2011 +0100 which is a mere 18 hours after it was mailed to lkml - and then you pus= hed it=20 out to linux-next some time after that, probably on the next day, Wedne= sday,=20 right? It does not matter one little bit that you'd have been 'ready to rebase= ' once=20 more had some objection come in that short 2 days time window from Mond= ay to=20 Wednesday, or any of the dates after that. What i'm saying for the fourth time is that what you did here is not a = proper=20 Git workflow: we only push bits out into permanent branches (and expose= them to=20 conflicts, etc.) once they are final, and we only do that after making = sure=20 that maintainers who maintain the trees of the affected files are fine = with it=20 and make sure that there are no conflicts. Or, failing all that, if you are such a superhero kernel hacker who nev= er makes=20 any mistakes and never apologizes and can freely ignore well-establishe= d Git=20 workflow best practices you should *at least* make sure you do not mess= up and=20 make sure the file you modify still builds on the architecture you are=20 modifying: $ git checkout 3490f584b9ba # clocksource: convert x86 to generic i82= 53 clocksource $ make defconfig $ make -j2 bzImage arch/x86/kernel/i8253.c: In function =E2=80=98init_pit_clocksource=E2= =80=99: arch/x86/kernel/i8253.c:133: error: implicit declaration of function = =E2=80=98clocksource_pit_init=E2=80=99 make[2]: *** [arch/x86/kernel/i8253.o] Error 1 make[1]: *** [arch/x86/kernel] Error 2 make: *** [arch/x86] Error 2 make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs.... Or is that too much to ask for? Thanks, Ingo