Re: [GIT PULL] bcache revert

[Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>]

On 08/31/2015 01:53 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 01:42:18PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 08/31/2015 01:29 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 01:14:07PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> On 08/31/2015 01:00 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote:
>>>>> Linus, please pull; this reverts a patch from Jens that was committed without
>>>>> CCing be or being mailed out to any of the lists. Said patch wasn't in any way a
>>>>> functional change and is something that damn well should have been discussed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jens - what the goddamn fuck!? You've never touched the bcache code until now,
>>>>> and when you finally get interested this is what you do!?
>>>>>
>>>>> While I am sympathetic to the arguments in favor of your patch, there _are_ some
>>>>> damn good reasons I did it the way I did. If you want to have that discussion,
>>>>> feel free to mail your patch out again after the revert.
>>>>
>>>> The patch was part of a larger series that I was working on, and I just
>>>> wanted to flush out that dependency. Christoph review and acked it, it was
>>>> by no means a sneaking in of a patch.
>>>
>>> I didn't see it until I went to rebase bcachefs onto 4.2 this morning. I triple
>>> checked; this patch is not in any mailing list archive. And you certainly didn't
>>> try to contact me. How is that _not_ sneaking it in?
>>
>> It's a simple cleanup patch, against a dormant driver. It was reviewed by
>> Christoph, which is as good as it gets. Yes, it should have been posted, but
>> it's not like we are talking about a rewrite or anything of that magnitude.
>> You're grossly overreacting. I would do it again.
>
> Look, you've had your own periods as an unavailable maintainer so I wouldn't
> throw stones - and it's no secret that I'm still working on bcache.

I am not throwing stones, just stating the upstream bcache has been 
dormant for more than a year.

> Really, as long as you think it's ok to commit patches without CCing the mailing
> list _or_ the maintainer, then fuck you. I wouldn't do that to you and I don't
> know anyone else who would, so as long as that's your attitude about it there's
> really nothing to discuss.

I already said that, yes, it should have been posted. But it's not like 
it was unreviewed. Or a massive change, by any stretch.

And we're still not discussing the motives for why it looked like that 
in the first place?

-- 
Jens Axboe