From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756001Ab3KMKgm (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Nov 2013 05:36:42 -0500 Received: from metis.ext.pengutronix.de ([92.198.50.35]:51234 "EHLO metis.ext.pengutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751389Ab3KMKgj (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Nov 2013 05:36:39 -0500 Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 11:36:32 +0100 From: Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Daniel Lezcano , Ingo Molnar , John Stultz , Laurent Pinchart , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] clockevents/clocksource: 3.12 fixes Message-ID: <20131113103632.GV14892@pengutronix.de> References: <528234B9.7080402@linaro.org> <20131112183553.GQ14892@pengutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2001:6f8:1178:2:21e:67ff:fe11:9c5c X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ukl@pengutronix.de X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on metis.ext.pengutronix.de); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-PTX-Original-Recipient: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Thomas, On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:57:46PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > The whole misery starts that you decided to play maintainer and grab > some patches from the mailinglist and then offering them via a pull > request to me and others. Finally you tricked Daniel to take them, >>From my POV this isn't "playing maintainer". You stopped reacting on the issue and I thought I make it easier for you (and others) to handle the patches in case you didn't take because of being busy with other stuff. > which is a different issue. > > There is a reason why I ignored that pull request: > > I generally do not pull git trees from people who I'm not > trusting. And I have good reasons not to trust you at all. > > Aside of that, I decided to give you a chance and actually pulled > your tree into a temporary branch and found out that it's missing a > stable annotation. Which made the whole exercise go into /dev/null I didn't add that stable annotation because I didn't want to add it without you being ok with it. And actually it's easy to get a patch into stable that isn't annotated. The other way round is harder. > Now Linus pulled my version way before Daniel pulled your tree into > his. And you even commented on my commit that I forgot to add a > tested-by tag. Yes, I missed that in favour of the stable annotation. > > But instead of rebasing your tree or even just withdrawing it and > resending the at91 patch, you let Daniel pull your thing. To be fair Daniel said to take my pull request a few days before your tip-bot told me that you finally took the patch. I could argue that it was your turn to tell Daniel that you took a part of the patches that were in my pull request. (But I don't as the situation it handled now and even if not, the only bad thing that would have happend is that another patch is duplicated in the history. shrug) Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |