This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH 2/2 v5] [BZ #10283] localedef: align fixed maps to SHMLBA
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>
- Cc: David Miller <davem at davemloft dot net>, vapier at gentoo dot org, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:24:16 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2 v5] [BZ #10283] localedef: align fixed maps to SHMLBA
- References: <20130619230242 dot 99D1D2C111 at topped-with-meat dot com> <20130619 dot 160945 dot 351998924661893149 dot davem at davemloft dot net> <20130619232341 dot A9C462C111 at topped-with-meat dot com> <20130619 dot 164631 dot 2015669758604184036 dot davem at davemloft dot net> <20130619235754 dot 18D332C111 at topped-with-meat dot com> <51C25826 dot 3010901 at redhat dot com> <20130620175224 dot B0E902C133 at topped-with-meat dot com>
On 06/20/2013 01:52 PM, Roland McGrath wrote:
>> You can still be right, but if everyone disagrees with you, and
>> you're unwilling to work towards a consensus, then the patch is
>> going to get checked in without your consent.
>
> I have a hard time imagining what I've done or said that would constitute
> being "unwilling to work towards a consensus". Please explain.
I apologize, that language was indeed too strong. You are engaged
in the discussion of consensus, but statements like this one:
`You're not going to convince me that SHMLBA counts as "generic"',
are what got riled up. I should not have gotten riled up, you
are entitled to whatever opinion you have and that is your own.
> In this case, the difference between the last patch Mike posted and what I
> said I'd be happy with is almost trivial. If Mike's patch goes in as is,
> then it will take me just a few minutes to clean it up as I asked him to
> do, and I'll just do that. Given this reality, Mike's, Dave's, and your
> recalcitrance seems a lot closer to "unwilling to work towards a consensus"
> than my position in every regard except popularity.
What I am most against is that consensus is the patch should
go in, but you think that "right" should pervail and Mike should
spend his time to make that patch match your expectations.
Even trivial changes are a request of someone elses time and
that time has immense value.
I am enheartened to see you offer your own time fix this to
meet your expectations. Your patch will equally go through
a review, and we'll likely accept it, but you did the work,
not Mike.
Giving of your own time to fix an issue that is outside of
consensus, and not blocking Mike's patch (which you do
because of your merit), is exactly the kind of actions I
agree with.
Cheers,
Carlos.