From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756317AbYICXU6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Sep 2008 19:20:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752387AbYICXUr (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Sep 2008 19:20:47 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:49869 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751840AbYICXUr (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Sep 2008 19:20:47 -0400 Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 16:20:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: David Miller cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [GIT]: Networking In-Reply-To: <20080903.161341.239039051.davem@davemloft.net> Message-ID: References: <20080903.161341.239039051.davem@davemloft.net> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (LFD 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 3 Sep 2008, David Miller wrote: > > 4) Several iwlwifi fixes: Are these really regressions? And if they aren't, why are they here and now? Are people really so _stupid_ that they think that no fixes ever cause new regressions, so that they think that because they are "fixes" they are safe? Please, guys. I complained once about this already. What's so hard to understand? Do development _separately_. Push new development during the merge window. Don't do it later. And don't think that just because it's a 'fix', it should go upstream asap. What's so hard to understand about this? I'll pull this YET AGAIN, but I'm getting really fed up with telling the same people the same thing over and over again. It looks like the iwlwifi people don't understand what "merge window" means, and thinks that any random fix for any random issue should always just be pushed up. Linus