Re: [PATCH 2/3] panic: improve panic_timeout calculation

[Felipe Contreras]

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 02:52:16PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> > That's exactly what I did. Addressing feedback constructively doesn't
>> > mean do exactly what you say without arguing.
>>
>> Your reply to my routine feedback was obtuse, argumentative and needlessly
>> confrontative - that's not 'constructive'.
>
> Felipe, remember when on the Git list Junio said he would stop trying
> to respond to any patches that had problems because you couldn't
> respond constructively to feedback, and you claimed that you had no
> problems working with other folks, including on the Linux Kernel
> mailing list?

Ingo Molnar != kernel folks, and I don't see any hints of kernel folks
suggesting to drop patch #1 because of non-technical issues.

If the patch is technically correct, conforms to standard practices,
and solves a problem; it gets applied. Isn't that how it works in
Linux?

-- 
Felipe Contreras
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/