Return-path: Received: from mail-pw0-f42.google.com ([209.85.160.42]:46279 "EHLO mail-pw0-f42.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751488AbZKCIro (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Nov 2009 03:47:44 -0500 Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 00:47:44 -0800 From: Dmitry Torokhov To: Johannes Berg Cc: Marcel Holtmann , David Miller , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linville@tuxdriver.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Please consider reverting 7d930bc33653d5592dc386a76a38f39c2e962344 Message-ID: <20091103084744.GH3212@core.coreip.homeip.net> References: <20091103053156.GA3212@core.coreip.homeip.net> <20091102.224957.32364226.davem@davemloft.net> <20091103065238.GE3212@core.coreip.homeip.net> <1257232587.3420.55.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1257234299.28469.25.camel@johannes.local> <20091103082201.GG3212@core.coreip.homeip.net> <1257237061.28469.43.camel@johannes.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1257237061.28469.43.camel@johannes.local> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 09:31:01AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 00:22 -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > I do not understand what the fuss is about. We are pretty far in release > > process (rc6 is about to be cut I'd expect) and we have an issue that > > for all practical purposes kills the box on resume. Yes, I want action > > to be swift in this case and (unless author or maintainer - who were > > CCed on the email - have otehr solutiuon) the offending commit to be > > reverted. If it was rc1 or rc2 or 3 I'd feel differently. > > Oh, I don't disagree that swift action is good. > > I just think that it's a matter of courtesy that should be independent > from the release cycle to ask the author/maintainer by default, not as a > second thought ("unless [...] have other solution"). You can always CC > Linus and ask him to revert if you don't get a response. > > What's wrong with that? It doesn't actually delay the action, but it > makes the discussion much more friendly and cooperative instead of > giving the author and maintainer the feeling that their opinion only > matters as a second thought. > I think you are reading too much into who was addressed directly and who was "only" CCed... OK, next time (which I hope won't happen :) ) I'll just address everyone directly. Will that work? -- Dmitry