From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751819AbWD0WOZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Apr 2006 18:14:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751820AbWD0WOZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Apr 2006 18:14:25 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:9939 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751819AbWD0WOY (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Apr 2006 18:14:24 -0400 Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 15:16:48 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: "Randy.Dunlap" Cc: gcoady.lk@gmail.com, ak@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6.17-rc2-mm1 Message-Id: <20060427151648.1a79b93a.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20060427145017.f35c906f.rdunlap@xenotime.net> References: <20060427014141.06b88072.akpm@osdl.org> <20060427121930.2c3591e0.akpm@osdl.org> <20060427145017.f35c906f.rdunlap@xenotime.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.0 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-vine-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org "Randy.Dunlap" wrote: > > On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 07:41:52 +1000 Grant Coady wrote: > > > On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 12:19:30 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > >I don't like dropping patches. Because then the thing needs to be fixed up > > >and resent and remerged and re-reviewed and rejects need to re-fixed-up and > > >this adds emailing overhead and 12-24 hour turnaround, etc. I very much > > >prefer to hang onto the patch and get it fixed up. This means that I > > >usually have to do the fixing-up. > > > > Perhaps dropping patches with obvious faults with some feedback > > to submitter may reduce your workload ;) And is slowing down the > > merge a little in these cases such a bad thing if it improves > > patch quality over time? > > True dat. That's what I would do. :) As I say - I prefer to keep moving in the forward direction. So if a patch needs coding-style cleanups, warning fixes, bugfixes, etc it's usually quicker to just fix the thing immediately rather than send it back, wait and then redo everything. The submitter sees the fixes and hence will Never Do That Again (right?) None of this is a particular burden for me - it'd average an hour a day, tops. My main reason for the big whine is that this defect rate indicates that people just aren't being sufficiently careful in their work. If so many silly trivial things are slipping through, then what does this tell us about the big things, ie: runtime bugs? > But I seem to need more sleep than Andrew does. There's plenty of time for that in the grave.