linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] clockevents/clocksource: 3.12 fixes

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Wed, 13 Nov 2013 11:36:32 +0100
From:	Uwe Kleine-König 
	<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@...asonboard.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] clockevents/clocksource: 3.12 fixes

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/  |
--
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/