Re: [Pull Request] Eseries patches | |
| [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] | |
On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 03:32:53AM +0100, Ian Molton wrote: > > Why do you always have to question such requests? > > To be sure I understand correctly. And when you fail to answer questions, > or you don't make something clear, then you don't get things the way you > like. The history: Me, 09/08/08: | You might like to look at git-request-pull as a basis for generating | pull request mails. Your response: | Thanks. Me, 18/08/08: | You: | > In fact, on further thought, please drop the IrDA patch altogether and | > merge the rest. I'll resubmit the IrDA patch after I redo the e-series | > base support. ... | And, not wanting to sound like a stuck vinyl record, but could you please | use the git tools to format messages asking for pulls. To which you replied: | Ok - two things | | 1) Its on my ToDo. | 2) Why? whats the benefit? You: | Me: | > Firstly, so I don't have to hunt back through emails to find the git | > URL. | | I think I've included the URL in all my pull requests... but OK. | | > Secondly so I can compare the diffstat with what I actually | > pulled. | | I can add a diffstat easily enough if you find it useful. To which I replied: | Or just use: | | git-request-pull <linus' origin> git://git.mnementh.co.uk/linux-2.6-im <head> | | Not only does it output the text along with diffstat and other useful | information for others reading the request, but it also checks that | what's at the URL matches what's being asked to be pull - so it'll | tell you before you suffer a red face. > > As for your claim that you sent a pull request with a diffstat in earlier, > > I see *no* evidence of that having been done *ever* for this set, unlike > > your claims. I've gone back to 21st August, no diffstat for the 'for_rmk' > > branch. The only one I can find is on the 19th August which was for the > > 'for_rmk_17' branch. > > Same patchset, different branch name. Either way, the above two mails > state that they are the same patchset, and the properly formatted pull > request was sent in > Message-ID: <48AAC3B0.4080303@xxxxxxx> as mentioned above. ... the one on the 19th for the 'for_rmk_17' branch. > You had all the pieces but didn't put them together, which is the same > offence you are roasting me over right now. I had all the information > about wether you pulled my patches, and I fucked up. I can admit that, > but it seems you cannot. So the bit where I explained on the 18th August: | > Firstly, so I don't have to hunt back through emails to find the git | > URL. why I wanted better formatted pull requests means nothing. After saying that I didn't want to dig back through lots of emails to find the information I require, you clearly (in your message to which I'm replying to) still expect me to find "all the pieces" from previous mails. Let's summarise: - I've asked you nicely twice to send properly formatted pull requests - I've explained why I want properly formatted pull requests - I've said that I don't want to dig back in emails to find "all the pieces" - You've sent one properly formatted pull request, which attracted Eric's attention, resulting in changes. - You continue to expect me to find "all the pieces". - You continue to send "reminders" some of which include changes, but which aren't properly formatted. > > Finally, note that my original plan was to be away from 20th to 31st > > August. Do you think that I want a mailbox full of people whining > > "RMK - Where are you?" > > Do you honestly expect me to remember your holiday plans? If I applied > that to all the people I keep contact with I'd be spending more time > consulting the calendar than I would be actually doing anything productive. Of course not. How about just realising that sending reminders at a high rate is just plain annoying, just like this previous instance: | Subject: Re: Clocklib & eseries patchset | From: Ian Molton <spyro@xxxxxxx> | Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 19:42:42 +0100 | | <clipped> | | Subject: Re: Clocklib & eseries patchset | From: Ian Molton <spyro@xxxxxxx> | Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 00:23:23 +0100 | | Ping? If you have to send reminders, once a week should be the maximum rate, not every couple of days. ------------------------------------------------------------------- List admin: http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel FAQ: http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/mailinglists/faq.php Etiquette: http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/mailinglists/etiquette.php
[Site Home] [Linux Arm] [Fedora ARM] [Gcc Help] [Git] [DCCP] [IETF Announce] [Security] [PDAs] [Linux] [Linux Book List] [Linux MIPS] [Yosemite Campsites] [Photos]
|
|