On 30.05.2012, at 14:38, Andreas Färber wrote: > Am 30.05.2012 14:16, schrieb Alexander Graf: >> >> On 30.05.2012, at 13:54, Andreas Färber wrote: >> >>> Am 30.05.2012 13:29, schrieb Alexander Graf: >>>> >>>> On 30.05.2012, at 13:22, Andreas Färber wrote: >>>> >>>>> Am 30.05.2012 10:13, schrieb Alexander Graf: >>>>>> >>>>>> No reply from Blue, so I applied this patch to ppc-next :). Thanks a lot! >>>>> >>>>> I did reply though, so I'm not okay. Please rebase on top of the patches >>>>> that I have supplied you with. Rebasing that set is no fun. >>>> >>>> Of course it's no fun, but it's neither crucial nor are you Blue. I'm wary >>>> enough with a big change like this, but your mail didn't sound like you >>>> were 100% confident that you took everything into account :(. >>>> >>>> I'd really prefer to have Blue just resend a set that converts the target >>>> and be done with it. Unless you're 100% sure that you did everything >>>> correctly. Then please resend the whole patch set with your own SOB lines >>>> and declare your own ownership (or blameship rather) ;). >>> >>> It is obvious that you haven't even looked at it or you would've seen my >>> SoB. :( >>> >>> I am confident that I did the rebasing of your series right, and I >>> pointed out that your series was better than Blue's latest before it >>> vanished. >>> >>> I am not confident that Blue's original conversion was fully correct, >>> but since it worked and had your SoB I didn't have to worry. ;) >> >> Heh :). Yeah, my main concern was the resend to the ML. And yes, I never >> look at git trees. A patch set is either a mail or doesn't exist to me :). >> So just resend it, I'll read through it, and then I'll merge things in my >> tree. > > You didn't post your fixed-up version to the list either!
Yes, because it would've gotten posted on the next pull request :). > But I can > easily do so, whatever you two do with it. You could've simply replied > to my mail requesting me to send it rather than pretending as if you > received nothing and pushing something else instead. That's the issue > I'm having here. Noted. > >>> P.S. Don't understand what is not supposed to be crucial here? >> >> That one's easily explained. If the patch set isn't applied, the world >> doesn't fall apart :). >> >>> I do see >>> a working qemu.git master branch and progress with merging QOM into >>> qemu.git as crucial. Whereas pulling logging workarounds into ppc-next >>> is not crucial at all and could be done by Anthony/Blue just as well. >> >> I don't see your point. > > Quoting agraf: "If the patch set isn't applied, the world doesn't fall > apart :)." > > So I don't see why you want to push non-crucial, non-ppc patches to > ppc-next and force people (Blue/me) to rebase large series with code > movements onto them rather than working towards applying the large > series first and rebasing small patches on top of it, which is much > easier for everyone involved and much more fair. I can certainly handle putting the 2 patches in my queue on top of the big patch set myself, no worries ;). Alex
