On 10/28/2015 07:10 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
You didn't answer my question.
I asked why you committed a patch given it didn't meet the conditions Bernd
set forth for approval. I didn't ask anything about the bug itself.
So I'll ask again, why did you commit a patch which you clearly knew did not
meet the conditions Bernd set forth for approval?
I believed that aarch64 backend didn't properly handle -fno-plt,
which shouldn't block my patch.
Speaking strictly for myself at the moment...
--
You ought to know better than that. A conditional approval was given,
but your patch did not meet the conditions and thus it can not be
considered approved.
At that point you could have *asked* if your patch could go forward, or
worked with the AArch64 maintainers (who are very responsive) to reach a
resolution and resubmitted a joint patch.
Instead you knowingly committed an unapproved patch.
Conditional approvals are a tool reviewers can use to help move patches
along a little faster as are commit privileges. Both rely on a level of
trust that the reviewers and project as a whole extends to the
contributor, namely that the contributor will only commit approved
patches. If a contributor can't be trusted to follow that rule, then
we've got a serious problem.
--
Jeff
