Re: [PATCH 2/3] panic: improve panic_timeout calculation

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>]

* Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 02:52:16PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >> > That's exactly what I did. Addressing feedback constructively doesn't
> >> > mean do exactly what you say without arguing.
> >>
> >> Your reply to my routine feedback was obtuse, argumentative and needlessly
> >> confrontative - that's not 'constructive'.
> >
> > Felipe, remember when on the Git list Junio said he would stop trying
> > to respond to any patches that had problems because you couldn't
> > respond constructively to feedback, and you claimed that you had no
> > problems working with other folks, including on the Linux Kernel
> > mailing list?
> 
> Ingo Molnar != kernel folks, and I don't see any hints of kernel folks 
> suggesting to drop patch #1 because of non-technical issues.
> 
> If the patch is technically correct, conforms to standard practices, and 
> solves a problem; it gets applied. Isn't that how it works in Linux?

I simply described to you what is standing Linux kernel maintenance 
policy.

It is not new nor unusual that kernel patch changelog quality matters: 
defective changelogs are routinely pointed out during review and are 
required to be fixed before a patch can progress. Linux kernel maintainers 
frequently push back against deficient changelogs - in fact they are 
expected to push back against them.

Your claim that a changelog defect that got pointed out during review is a 
'non-technical', 'administrative' problem in Linux kernel development is 
simply wrong and your continued stubborn refusal to address such review 
feedback constructively is unnecessarily complicating the efficient 
processing of these patches.

Thanks,

	Ingo