From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758774AbYDZPpX (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Apr 2008 11:45:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753467AbYDZPpL (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Apr 2008 11:45:11 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:42879 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753773AbYDZPpK (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Apr 2008 11:45:10 -0400 Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 08:44:20 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Adrian Bunk Cc: Harvey Harrison , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Linus Torvalds , LKML Subject: Re: If you want me to quit I will quit Message-Id: <20080426084420.8e61c379.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20080426152341.GI2252@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> References: <1209190455.14173.13.camel@brick> <20080426110044.GB2252@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <20080426075132.b0fdbe13.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080426152341.GI2252@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.8 (GTK+ 2.12.5; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 18:23:41 +0300 Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 07:51:32AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 14:00:44 +0300 Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > > > Why do other people get over 100 checkpatch fixes into the tree at once > > > or Linus applies patches directly bypassing the maintainers (like the > > > one you sent just before [3], which I've also already sent before [4]) > > > but my patches bitrot forever? > > > > If I am not cc'ed on a patch and have to resort to plucking it off the > > mailing list it ends up being significantly more work and more error-prone > > for me to process it. > > > > I used to merge your patches but then you chose to stop ccing me on them so > > I stopped applying them. The increased hassle just isn't worth it for some > > random make-foo-static patch. I do try to keep an eye out for more > > significant changes but hey, stuff happens. > > > > You chose to disrupt the workflow and now you're here complaining and blaming > > others for the consequences of your own action. > > > Why didn't you tell me an explicit Cc is important for you? Don't know, really. Something in me resiles from going and doing things which increase the patch volume, perhaps. > I'll resend my pending batch with a Cc to you. OK. Many of your make-static-foo-etc patches are in fact fixes against recently-merged changes, I think. It's better to get those fixes folded into the errant patch before things go into mainline: we get one correct commit in the permanent record rather than one dodgy commit followed by a later oh-let's-fix-that-up commit. So I'd encourage you to try to catch these things in -mm or linux-next and, if poss (and I know it's a bit of work), identify the offending commit. git-tree owners might need, umm, some encouragement here. It's much easier for them to slap the oh-let's-fix-that-up commit at the tail of their queue, which leaves us with the straggly commit record.