[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2023 17:54:00 +0000
From: Nick Terrell <terrelln@...a.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Nick Terrell <terrelln@...a.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nick Terrell <nickrterrell@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] zstd changes for v6.3-rc1
> On Mar 3, 2023, at 9:28 AM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> !-------------------------------------------------------------------|
> This Message Is From an External Sender
>
> |-------------------------------------------------------------------!
>
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 10:23 PM Nick Terrell <terrelln@...a.com> wrote:
>>
>> Zstd fixes for v6.3
>
> Grr.
>
> This tree had five commits in it.
>
> Of the five, two were merges.
>
> And of those two, ABSOLUTELY NONE had any explanation for them AT ALL.
>
> Honestly, I pulled this, and was then *so* fed up with this kind of
> garbage that I just decided that I'm better off without this all.
>
> So this got all undone again, and I'm not pulling this kind of sh*t again.
>
> I'm *very* fed up with having to tell people the same thing over and over again.
>
> Just stop doing merges if you can't be bothered to do do them right.
I’m sorry, I thought this was standard practice for merging in the mainline branch.
I’ve been following this article [0], which recommended not rebasing my public
trees, so I merged in the mainline kernel instead.
I am a newer maintainer, and either I missed the documentation, or it slipped my
mind. I will search for documentation about how to write better merge requests.
Meanwhile, what do you want me to do with this tree? If the merges are unacceptable,
I can rebase the 3 patches in my tree onto v6.2, and re-send the pull request.
Best,
Nick Terrell
[0] https://lwn.net/Articles/512720/
> Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists