[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181023090245.GC23341@1wt.eu>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 11:02:45 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...tlin.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@...il.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Git pull ack emails..
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 09:41:32AM +0100, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Because yes, the second option likely works fine in most cases, but my
> pull might not actually be final *if* something goes bad (where bad
> might be just "oops, my tests showed a semantic conflict, I'll need to
> fix up my merge" to "I'm going to have to look more closely at that
> warning" to "uhhuh, I'm going to just undo the pull entirely because
> it ended up being broken").
Is that a big problem ? I mean probably those who need an ACK just want
to be sure their PR was not lost between them and you. It's not a guarantee
that the code will be kept till the release anyway, and I tend to think
that changing your mind after attempting a build is not different than
changing your mind 3 days later. So when this happens, you're possibly
expected to simply notify the author later saying "sorry, I changed my
mind and finally I dropped your code for this or that reason". That
should be enough to cover the vast majority of use cases, no ?
Just my two cents,
Willy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists