* Felipe Contreras <felipe.contre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Theodore Ts'o <ty...@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?
I simply described to you what is standing Linux kernel maintenance
policy.
It is not new nor unusual that kernel patch changelog quality matters:
defective changelogs are routinely pointed out during review and are
required to be fixed before a patch can progress. Linux kernel maintainers
frequently push back against deficient changelogs - in fact they are
expected to push back against them.
Your claim that a changelog defect that got pointed out during review is a
'non-technical', 'administrative' problem in Linux kernel development is
simply wrong and your continued stubborn refusal to address such review
feedback constructively is unnecessarily complicating the efficient
processing of these patches.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
