Messages in this thread | | | From | "Brown, Len" <> | Date | Fri, 5 Aug 2011 12:44:15 -0700 | Subject | RE: next-200110804 ARM build break (cpuidle_call_idle) |
| |
> > The last three commits in the idle tree that you took from Len were in > > linux-next until April 15 and then disappeared until yesterday. The last > > of these was broken back then and has been committed exactly the same now > > and still breaks arm and sh. > > > > I have reverted that commit from your tree for today ... > > Len, this is *exactly* why I com plained about the git trees you pushed to me.
Ugh, 3 flubs from me in 1 day -- I should have taken the day off! I actually fixed that typo, but failed to include it:-(
> And then I pulled anyway, because you and others convinced me things > had been in -next despite the commit dates being odd. > > Let's just say that I'm really *really* disappointed. And dammit, you > need to fix your workflow. Don't add random commits late. If you're > offline, you're offline, and you send the old tested tree, not some > last-minute crap.
Okay.
> Next time I find reason to complain, I just won't pull. In fact, I'm > seriously considering a rather draconian measure for next merge > window: I'll fetch the -next tree when I open the merge window, and if > I get anything but trivial fixes that don't show up in that "next tree > at the point of merge window open", I'll just ignore that pull > request. Because clearly people are just not being careful enough.
Agreed. I don't think it would be 'Draconian' to enforce a pre-merge-window-merge-window. Indeed, if it were automated and the timing were clearly known ahead of time, then the structure would be helplful.
thanks, -Len
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |