Re: [GIT PULL/NEXT] sched/arch: Introduce the finish_arch_post_lock_switch() scheduler callback

[Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk>]

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 01:20:53PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> 
> > Why am _I_ responsible for which kernel version _Catalin_ used 
> > for _his_ patches when _he_ committed them?
> 
> If you then pull that tree from him and push it out to 
> linux-next? Then *of course* you are responsible, it was your 
> decision to pull it.
> 
> I frequently reject pulls from subsystem maintainers on similar 
> (and sometimes lesser) grounds - because such mistakes tend to 
> compound with time.
> 
> The thing is, if you do Git pulls from someone then you must be 
> absolutely anal about it, because you cannot really fix things 
> up after the fact. The people you pull from must be your 
> extended arms, they must be doing an equal or better job than 
> you. That gives a basis of trust.
> 
> Once that is established, you can be permissive about mistakes. 
> 
> But arguing that you are not responsible for what you pull is 
> absolutely grotesque and establishes a new low for this 
> discussion really...
> 
> Also, as I told you in the very first mail, I am *fine* with 
> this having happened, so you having zapped the commits is 
> indefensible IMO. Mistakes do happen and the patch is fine 
> technically and sfr and Linus could have handled the trivial 
> conflict. What I suggested was to do it a bit better in the 
> future. Is that too much to ask for?
> 
> > You're insane.  Totally.
> 
> I think you owe me an apology :-(

I owe you nothing.  From where I stand, I did nothing wrong.

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of: