netdev - Re: net-next-2.6 [pull-request] [PATCH 0/37] dccp: Revised set of feature-negotiation patches

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: <20080909.221914.193697907.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Tue, 09 Sep 2008 22:19:14 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	gerrit@....abdn.ac.uk
Cc:	acme@...hat.com, dccp@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: net-next-2.6 [pull-request] [PATCH 0/37] dccp: Revised set of
 feature-negotiation patches

From: Gerrit Renker <gerrit@....abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 07:01:15 +0200

> Not only are you lacking the courage to admit that it was your own fault
> to pull a tree no one had asked you to pull, now you are trying to make 
> me look foolish to cover your own mistake. 

Your subject line said, and it's still being used in this thread:
"net-next-2.6 [pull-request]"

What the heck should I take that to mean exactly?

> It further did not even occur to you to check the provided gitweb link, nor
> did you recognise that you had pulled about 100 instead of 37 patches. And
> you seem not to have looked at the diffstats either - what has a change in
> tcp_input.c got to do with a DCCP-only patch set?
>
> Not to mention the conflicts which you silently fixed instead of looking at
> their cause.

I did look at the merge conflicts I fixed up, code moved from one place
to another or got handled by new helper routines which were being
called, so I picked the appropriate hunk and validated the build.

If I wasn't all that sure of the result I would have replied to you
instead saying "this tree is messed up, I'm not pulling"  And I do
that all the time.

The shorter answer is I did my best and I TRUSTED YOU to only point
a GIT URL my way that was explicitly ready.  Else, you'd say "don't
pull this" rather than have "net-next-2.6 pull request" in the subject
line.

> What you are saying here has little authority. It is just foolish vanity.

Gerrit, it's over.  The only one in vain is you.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html