Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 23 Oct 2018 11:23:29 +0200
Message-ID: <s5hk1m9qani.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
From:   Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@bootlin.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
        Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@gmail.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Subject: Re: Git pull ack emails..
In-Reply-To: <20181023090245.GC23341@1wt.eu>
References: <CAHk-=wjS6cjjP+fkZWzzrdZ_fZ1F=PrAGcBc57vKCpNyoD73Vw@mail.gmail.com>
        <20181023090245.GC23341@1wt.eu>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka)
 FLIM/1.14.9 (=?UTF-8?B?R29qxY0=?=) APEL/10.8 Emacs/26
 (x86_64-suse-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 11:02:45 +0200,
Willy Tarreau wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 09:41:32AM +0100, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Because yes, the second option likely works fine in most cases, but my
> > pull might not actually be final *if* something goes bad (where  bad
> > might be just "oops, my tests showed a semantic conflict, I'll need to
> > fix up my merge" to "I'm going to have to look more closely at that
> > warning" to "uhhuh, I'm going to just undo the pull entirely because
> > it ended up being broken").
> 
> Is that a big problem ? I mean probably those who need an ACK just want
> to be sure their PR was not lost between them and you. It's not a guarantee
> that the code will be kept till the release anyway, and I tend to think
> that changing your mind after attempting a build is not different than
> changing your mind 3 days later. So when this happens, you're possibly
> expected to simply notify the author later saying "sorry, I changed my
> mind and finally I dropped your code for this or that reason". That
> should be enough to cover the vast majority of use cases, no ?

Agreed, the ACK mail doesn't necessarily mean that everything right,
but just ACK that the pull request is being processed.  The e-mail
communication can go wrong pretty easily (happened once or twice for
my past PR's), so a simple ACK would relieve me wrt that point -- as
Greg's ACK did indeed.


thanks,

Takashi