From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755940Ab0CDXEW (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Mar 2010 18:04:22 -0500 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:37463 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752803Ab0CDXEV (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Mar 2010 18:04:21 -0500 Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 15:03:52 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds X-X-Sender: torvalds@localhost.localdomain To: Adam Jackson cc: Matthew Garrett , Dave Airlie , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.sf.net Subject: Re: [git pull] drm request 3 In-Reply-To: <1267741697.1316.16.camel@atropine.boston.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <20100304185002.GA23532@srcf.ucam.org> <20100304190450.GA23807@srcf.ucam.org> <1267741697.1316.16.camel@atropine.boston.devel.redhat.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Adam Jackson wrote: > On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 11:14 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > If you'd made it clear that you wanted the interface to be stable > > > before it got merged, I suspect that it simply wouldn't have been merged > > > until the interface was stable. > > > > What kind of excuse is that? It's "we did bad things, but if we didn't do > > those bad things, we'd have done _other_ bad things"? > > > > Two wrong choices don't make a right. > > So unmerge it. That's what I told people I can do (I'd just revert that commit). I can do that. But it's not very productive, is it? What about the people who _do_ want to run the rawhide tree? Seriously - what's wrong with my suggestion to just version things properly? What's wrong with _fixing_ a stupid technical problem? What's wrong with people that you can't see that there are actual _solutions_ to the f*cking mess that is the current situation? I can solve it for my own use, and I already stated so. But while kernel developers should be scratching their own itches, a kernel developer that can't see past his own small sandbox is pretty damn worthless. We do need to fix this - and I'm bringing it up and complaining about it, because the nouveau people have _not_ done anything remotely sane. The current situation causes problems for people. Anybody who disputes that is in denial. Can somebody come up with a _better_ solution than the one I suggested? Feel free to do so, but in the meantime, I have to say that your reply and that of Matthew and others have been totally pointless, and making excuses rather than trying to actually face the fact that there is a problem. So man up, guys. Face the problem, rather than say "well, it's staging", or "well, we can revert it". Neither of those really solve anything in the short run _or_ the long run. Linus