Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: Unmaintained QEMU builds

[Jes Sorensen]

On 08/12/10 11:17, Stefan Weil wrote:
> Am 12.08.2010 00:12, schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
> Jes has an opinion how thinks should be done, and I have a different one.
> If you read the complete history, you can see that I suggested a
> compromise (*)
> which would give the same result as Jes' suggestions. Only the steps
> to reach this result were different, and I have good reasons why I
> prefer my way to do them. Both ways require two commits, so
> there would be no difference for the community nor for the
> committers.
> 
> I did not reply to Jes' last mail because he claims to represent the
> community without accepting that others (in this case me) who are
> also part of the community might have good reason for their approach, too.
> His mail was also very impolite which is one more reason why I
> did not reply.

I gave you plenty technical reasons for doing things the right way, and
you did agree that it should go to the right place. However rather than
doing the small job it was to fix up the patch, you decided to ignore it.

It's a real shame your patch was applied the way it was. The net result
of it is that someone doing a git bisect on the tree will end up with a
broken build they have to work around. Frankly if anyone here is
impolite, it is you for trying to force in patches that breaks debugging.

Jes