[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20121004110615.3fda3c25735284c776106d7d@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 11:06:15 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, vipul@...lsio.com, jay@...lsio.com
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the net tree
Hi David,
On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 20:50:53 -0400 (EDT) David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>
> I do have a question though, it is honestly really that much easier to
> revert a whole days worth of changes (and therefore not get the code
> tested at all) than to simply add the obvious one liner?
Actually, for me it is. I have a script that does the "use yesterday's
version" for me. To fix (even a one liner) means bringing up an editor,
commiting, creating the patch and then recommiting it (an implementation
detail) and recording that I need to keep (automatically) applying the
patch in case the maintainer doesn't react quickly.
In this particular case I have been telling people to include vmalloc.h
(and other things like slab.h) over and over for years ... its a pain
that x86 builds indirectly include so much stuff.
> It seems to me to be absolutely the wrong tradeoff in these situations.
I guess for the "current/fixes" tree during the merge window, you are
right. For the "normal" trees, does a delay of (usually) one day really
matter?
I used to fix all this stuff and it added considerably to the length of
my work day (which currently can be up to 16 hours long) :-(
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@...b.auug.org.au
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists