Re: Please consider reverting 7d930bc33653d5592dc386a76a38f39c2e962344

[Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>]

On Wed 2009-11-04 00:29:47, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> Hi Johannes,
> 
> > > > I just think that it's a matter of courtesy that should be independent
> > > > from the release cycle to ask the author/maintainer by default, not as a
> > > > second thought ("unless [...] have other solution"). You can always CC
> > > > Linus and ask him to revert if you don't get a response.
> > > > 
> > > > What's wrong with that? It doesn't actually delay the action, but it
> > > > makes the discussion much more friendly and cooperative instead of
> > > > giving the author and maintainer the feeling that their opinion only
> > > > matters as a second thought.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I think you are reading too much into who was addressed directly and who
> > > was "only" CCed... 
> > 
> > Maybe. But it seems to be happening pretty often recently that people
> > first ask for a revert and then for a fix, ignoring any thought that
> > might have gone into a particular commit...
> 
> I have to agree here. It happens why too often lately. And this needs to
> stop. Otherwise why bother with subsystem maintainers? Just send
> everything to Linus directly and have him to review every line of code.
> 
> Dmitry, this is not against you, but the proper way would have been to
> just mail linux-wireless about it and you would have gotten the same
> response to it than you got by including Linus and LKML. This blind CC
> to LKML is not helpful. It starts confusion and just increases the load

Yes, lkml cc *is* helpful, as he's probably not the only one hitting
that problem.
								Pavel

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html