From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753346AbZHBSqW (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Aug 2009 14:46:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753301AbZHBSqV (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Aug 2009 14:46:21 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:48005 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753284AbZHBSqV (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Aug 2009 14:46:21 -0400 X-Authenticated: #1045983 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18nQYcQC+AnvRAB8gzQajT4qHXpRSxzRfhhnPQrqG A/XCuWQ+4wt45H Message-ID: <4A75DEFA.1070009@gmx.de> Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 20:46:18 +0200 From: Helge Deller User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1b3pre) Gecko/20090513 Fedora/3.0-2.3.beta2.fc11 Thunderbird/3.0b2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kyle McMartin CC: Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Development Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] arch/parisc fixes for 2.6.31-rc6 References: <4A75C69E.4060307@gmx.de> <20090802172137.GA28572@bombadil.infradead.org> <4A75D221.1020902@gmx.de> <20090802180636.GB28572@bombadil.infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20090802180636.GB28572@bombadil.infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.53 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 08/02/2009 08:06 PM, Kyle McMartin wrote: > On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 07:51:29PM +0200, Helge Deller wrote: >> On 08/02/2009 07:21 PM, Kyle McMartin wrote: >>> On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 07:02:22PM +0200, Helge Deller wrote: >>>> Hi Linus, >>>> >>>> please pull the following changes for the HP parisc architecture. >>> Uhm, I didn't authorize you to do this... >> I'm equally authorized like you. >> >> MAINTAINERS file shows: >> PARISC ARCHITECTURE >> M: Kyle McMartin >> M: Helge Deller > > That's not how this works. Cool. Great argument! >>> WTF? >> During the development cycle of 2.6.26 up to 2.6.30, many >> patches were not pushed upstream by someone. >> Now I'm having a whole lot of work to push the missing patches >> back into the stable-kernel and debian kernel series. >> That's the reason I don't want that those patches miss 2.6.31 too... >> > > Then send *me* a pull request. Don't give me a bloody end-around, it's > simply unacceptable behaviour. I'm missing a very important thing here: Can you guarantee, that you will push things upstream in time? If yes, I'm fine with sending you a push request. If not, I don't see any other way. Helge