Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> writes:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> writes:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 05:13:15PM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> writes:
>>>
>>> > On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 04:09:36PM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>> >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> writes:
>>> >>
>>> >> > tcp_get_fds API discards fds if there's more than 1 of these.
>>> >>
>>> >> s/tcp_get_fds/tcp_get_msgfds/ (subject as well)
>>> >
>>> > Right. Too late as I sent this upstream :(
>>>
>>> Oh, now I see: you already sent this in a pull request, after less than
>>> 20 hours on list. Please don't do that except in dire emergency. It
>>> sabotages our review process.
>>
>> I sometimes do this for patches that seem trivial to me.
>
> Please don't. No patch is too trivial for review.
>
>> I've backed this one out for now.
>
> Thanks.
I just noticed you simply resent the thing unchanged in your next pull
request. Pray tell me, why should I spend my time on reviewing your
patches?
Timeline:
Nov 2 You submit the patch
Nov 3 You include it in a pull req after <20h
Nov 3 I review, ask for minor improvements
You reply "too late"
Peter asks you to drop it
You comply
Nov 23 You include it in a pull req *unchanged*, doesn't build
Nov 24 You include it in a pull req *unchanged*, Peter applies
