Re: [Pull Request] Eseries patches | |
| [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] | |
Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> 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:
Quoting private mail publicly. Nice.
> Me, 09/08/08:
> | You might like to look at git-request-pull as a basis for generating
> | pull request mails.
>
> Your response:
> | Thanks.
Right - you state that I *might* want to - not that its required.
I replied thanking you for the information. I didnt have time then to read up on it.
> Me, 18/08/08:
> | And, not wanting to sound like a stuck vinyl record, but could you please
> | use the git tools to format messages asking for pulls.
So at that point I thought "Ok, sounds like you _really_ prefer that method",
and so I asked why - which I don't think is unreasonable, and at that point in
time I wasn't the only person on the list who sent 'nonstandard' pull requests
to the list.
> To which you replied:
> | Ok - two things
> |
> | 1) Its on my ToDo.
I think its not unreasonable to ask that people give you time to look up how to
use a new tool that _they_ want you to use.
> | 2) Why? whats the benefit?
And its good to know the reasons. Sometimes they are even things I havent
thought of, and I find that info useful. I dont think I demanded you explain
yourself though - only a polite request.
> 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.
And that point still stands - I think all my pull requests after your initial
request to include the URL in each one have had the URL in them, so I dont see
what your problem is on that point.
> | > Secondly so I can compare the diffstat with what I actually
> | > pulled.
> |
> | I can add a diffstat easily enough if you find it useful.
So, I actually addressed the two points that you wanted specifically already.
> 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.
At this point I had time to read up on it, and decided to use it in future. The
only thing I didn't realise at this point was that you were going to require
fully formatted pull requests even in reminders, which given that I don't have a
crystal ball either, I don't think is unreasonable.
>> 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.
Can you not read. The above paragraph *clearly* states "Same patchset, different
branch name", and also clearly points out that this is made plain in the two
emails I referenced above.
You are splitting hairs here.
All you had to do was say "Please send full pull requests for reminders" and
that's what you'd have got. I'm not unreasonable.
> > 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.
You're quoting that out of context. Thats not what I said, nor what I expect.
If you look back, after your request that I put the URL in all my pull requests,
I think you will find that it has been present in every single one.
When I said above that you had all the pieces, what I mean is that it should
have been obvious from the wording of my reminders that I was referring to the
older patchset - If you didnt believe that then you wouldnt have considered them
to be reminders, so clearly you're just trying to score points by pretending you
don't understand that.
> Let's summarise:
> - I've asked you nicely twice to send properly formatted pull requests
You stated nothing about the format of reminders. My pull requests since then
_have_ been formatted as you asked. Only my reminders have not, because I did
not realise you wanted them to be.
> - I've explained why I want properly formatted pull requests
And I didn't argue with you.
> - I've said that I don't want to dig back in emails to find "all the pieces"
And I have supplied the full URL in all pull requests since that request.
> - You continue to expect me to find "all the pieces".
I expect you to read a reminder and assume it refers to an earlier message, yes.
Who on earth reads a reminder and assumes it refers to something they have never
seen before? Don't be an idiot.
> - You continue to send "reminders" some of which include changes, but
> which aren't properly formatted.
Unless I've made a mistake, none of the reminders have included changes. Since
its now clear you want 'git pull-request' format reminders, thats what you will get.
Please, tell me how I am not complying with what you ask for?
> Of course not. How about just realising that sending reminders at a
> high rate is just plain annoying, just like this previous instance:
I don't, usually (if you look back overall at mails I've sent to you, I only
scale up the frequency of the reminders (generally speaking) when two conditions
apply:
1) I don't hear from you for a while (which I didnt)
2) I see you active on the mailinglist (which I did)
If I dont get replies, AND I see you actively posting, then I assume that my
mail is not getting through.
> | 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.
I admit those two are a little closely spaced. Sorry about that.
That said, I believe we were discussing the events around the pull request on
the 19th.
Which actually prompted me to take another look at it and you are _wrong_ It was
__not__ for the for_rmk_17 branch as you stated, you've misread it.
It *quite clearly* states:
"
The following changes since commit 1a1dc50442ef1a3e5ef938a8541466ac38d163a9:
Russell King (1):
Merge branch 'for_rmk_17' of git://git.mnementh.co.uk/linux-2.6-im
are available in the git repository at:
git://git.mnementh.co.uk/linux-2.6-im for_rmk
"
^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^
So perhaps since we both have red faces now, we can stop this pointless flamewar?
Thanks for playing,
-Ian
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
|
|