From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752701Ab2CMMhE (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2012 08:37:04 -0400 Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([78.32.30.218]:53289 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752489Ab2CMMhA (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2012 08:37:00 -0400 Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 12:36:34 +0000 From: Russell King To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Linus Torvalds , Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Catalin Marinas , Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [GIT PULL/NEXT] sched/arch: Introduce the finish_arch_post_lock_switch() scheduler callback Message-ID: <20120313123634.GB2174@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20120313084713.GB27560@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20120313085628.GB6991@elte.hu> <20120313090040.GE27560@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20120313092649.GA15406@elte.hu> <20120313095020.GA13220@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20120313101859.GA2626@elte.hu> <20120313112729.GA25835@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20120313115640.GA27378@elte.hu> <20120313120014.GB13220@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20120313122053.GA17549@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120313122053.GA17549@elte.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 01:20:53PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Russell King 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: