lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Nov]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/3] panic: improve panic_timeout calculation
From
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 02:52:16PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> > That's exactly what I did. Addressing feedback constructively doesn't
>> > mean do exactly what you say without arguing.
>>
>> Your reply to my routine feedback was obtuse, argumentative and needlessly
>> confrontative - that's not 'constructive'.
>
> Felipe, remember when on the Git list Junio said he would stop trying
> to respond to any patches that had problems because you couldn't
> respond constructively to feedback, and you claimed that you had no
> problems working with other folks, including on the Linux Kernel
> mailing list?

Ingo Molnar != kernel folks, and I don't see any hints of kernel folks
suggesting to drop patch #1 because of non-technical issues.

If the patch is technically correct, conforms to standard practices,
and solves a problem; it gets applied. Isn't that how it works in
Linux?

--
Felipe Contreras


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-11-11 17:21    [W:0.198 / U:0.120 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site