On 06/19/2015 05:49 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 04:57:00PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote: >> On 06/18/2015 12:59 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 10:19:19AM -0700, Rob Landley wrote: >>>> Changes to existing files to add 0pf j2 board support. >>>> >>> >>> That's the second worse commit message and subject: line I've read >>> today. >>> >>> And there's no signed off by line. >> >> My bad. I've always sucked at filling out paperwork, and I didn't expect >> this to go in as is. But for the sake of following the official >> procedures (well, step 11 of of SubmittingPatches, it's not mentioned in >> any of the 26 steps of SubmitChecklist), here's the requested certification: >> >> Signed-off-by: Rob Landley <r...@landley.net> >> Reviewed-by: D. Jeff Dionne <j...@uclinux.org> > > You didn't do the 26 steps of SubmitChecklist, as step 5 would have > caught almost all of these issues.
I did not, yes. That's what I was saying above. (Sorry, probably should have stuck [RFC] on this. I mentioned in the 0/ message that it had several large known todo items. The consensus is I should do device tree conversion before resubmitting, so working on that.) >>> And there was no 1/2 patch sent. >> >> I sent one, which made it to the archive... >> >> http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1506.2/02539.html > > But you didn't cc: me on that, how am I supposed to know? Ah, I didn't consistently cc: enough people. Got it. >>> And, most importantly: >>> >>>> diff --git a/arch/sh/Kconfig b/arch/sh/Kconfig >>> >>> I don't care about arch/sh/ stuff, why are you sending this to me? >> >> $ scripts/get_maintainer.pl j2-oldfiles.patch | grep Greg >> Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> (maintainer:SERIAL DRIVERS) >> >> Sorry, my bad, I was trying to follow the documented procedure. >> Personally I'd have trimmed the cc: list but filling things out in >> triplicate seems to be all the rage these days. > > No, you need to break your patch up properly, a single patch hitting all > of these files has never been ok. So I've been told, yes. >>> You have a bit of work to do here... >> >> As I mentioned in 0/2, yes. But "release early, release often" and all that. >> >> (Or did we stop doing that now the Linux Foundation's in charge? > > Seriously? It's one thing to cc: a ton of people with a patch that for > 90% of it, isn't relevant to them, and isn't even something they can do > anything with. Ah, I cc:'d too many people. Got it. (Trimming cc: list.) I'm still getting cc'd on Documentation/ patches, despite bowing out of messing with that in 2013 and not really doing _any_ kernel stuff in over a year. Didn't realize it was a thing I should be avoiding. > It's another thing to rant against those who try to > point out how to solve your issues. [Way too long a reply to this bit deleted.] Let's just say there are a number of historical reasons I've addressed you as "my nemesis" when we bumped into each other at conferences over the past few years. At this point I start my replies to you with a level of exasperation that's probably not helpful. I'll try to compensate. >> I'm still stuck in the hobbyist era from back before we had a >> foundation with committees and a hierarchy where you need to go >> through proper channels and three dozen patch submission steps in two >> different files and all that. I'm trying to keep up, but I've always >> been really bad at bureaucracy...) > > There is no such thing here, you know better than that, We're discussing my failure to correctly follow a 26 step procedure followed by a second 15 step procedure. Your first objection was that I didn't sign the right line to provide a mandatory certification resulting from historical legal action. You're enforcing these procedures from an executive position within a hierarchy (tier 3 of 4 in developer/maintainer/subsystem/architect review cycle, if you approve requests you submit them up the chain for further approval), on behalf of a foundation that describes itself as a "consortium" and links to an antitrust policy (and three other policies) from every page of its website, which got its name during a merger with a standards body a decade ago. No such thing as bureaucracy here. Got it. > stop trying to troll, it's not very becoming. I wasn't saying bureaucracy is a bad thing, just that I'm bad at it. Trying to coordinate ten thousand people on six continents working on a quarter-century old project with a globetrotting annual meeting that's closed to the public isn't the same as emailing a college student in his bedroom about the thing he started over the summer that a couple dozen other people liked. I'm aware of this. > greg k-h Rob -- 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/
