linux-kernel - Re: If you want me to quit I will quit

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20080426084420.8e61c379.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Sat, 26 Apr 2008 08:44:20 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
Cc:	Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...radead.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: If you want me to quit I will quit

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 18:23:41 +0300 Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 07:51:32AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 14:00:44 +0300 Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > Why do other people get over 100 checkpatch fixes into the tree at once 
> > > or Linus applies patches directly bypassing the maintainers (like the 
> > > one you sent just before [3], which I've also already sent before [4]) 
> > > but my patches bitrot forever?
> > 
> > If I am not cc'ed on a patch and have to resort to plucking it off the
> > mailing list it ends up being significantly more work and more error-prone
> > for me to process it.
> > 
> > I used to merge your patches but then you chose to stop ccing me on them so
> > I stopped applying them.  The increased hassle just isn't worth it for some
> > random make-foo-static patch.  I do try to keep an eye out for more
> > significant changes but hey, stuff happens.
> > 
> > You chose to disrupt the workflow and now you're here complaining and blaming
> > others for the consequences of your own action.
> 
> 
> Why didn't you tell me an explicit Cc is important for you?

Don't know, really.  Something in me resiles from going and doing things
which increase the patch volume, perhaps.

> I'll resend my pending batch with a Cc to you.

OK.

Many of your make-static-foo-etc patches are in fact fixes against
recently-merged changes, I think.  It's better to get those fixes folded
into the errant patch before things go into mainline: we get one correct
commit in the permanent record rather than one dodgy commit followed by a
later oh-let's-fix-that-up commit.

So I'd encourage you to try to catch these things in -mm or linux-next and,
if poss (and I know it's a bit of work), identify the offending commit.

git-tree owners might need, umm, some encouragement here.  It's much easier
for them to slap the oh-let's-fix-that-up commit at the tail of their
queue, which leaves us with the straggly commit record.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/