Hi,
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Here are a few snippets from you that show that most of the negative
> messaging from you was directed against the text Thomas wrote (or
> against Thomas), not against the code:
Do you really think quoting me out of context is helping? From my
perspective you're trying to show me now as the bad guy and I'm not
accepting that. I don't know what you're trying to do, if you're trying to
mediate, then you're really suck at it, if you just want to piss me off,
it's working great. :-(
Technically I still stand behind everything I said in that context, in the
meantime I learned a few new things and I understand them better, so
some things have become nonissues and I even changed my mind about some
other things.
OTOH I'm the first to admit that I could have said things nicer, but mail
is a rather bad channel to transport emotions and whatever I say can be
taken badly. I really try my best to avoid this, but sometimes it's really
hard, especially if I can't get past the initial resentment. I gladly
apologize for any mistake I did and I'll do my best to learn from it, but
I'm not going to make amends for it forever. At some point it would be
really nice if you stopped to rub it in what a insensitive clod I am, I
know that already.
Ingo, if you want to help me, why don't you go with a good example ahead
and I'll try to follow you. How about this?
> > > > [...] So Thomas, please get over yourself and start talking.
> >
> > I must say it's completely beyond me how this could be "insulting".
>
> maybe it is insulting because the "get over yourself" implicitly
> suggests that the fault is with Thomas?
This is a nice example, that _whatever_ I'm saying can be misunderstood.
Why don't you even try to give me a little credit that above was not meant
as insult? You make an assumption about what I said and you don't even
give me a chance to correct myself.
Thomas obviously has some kind of problem with me and unless he starts to
talk to me, I can't help him to get over whatever problem that is. I'm
not going away, so we have to get along somehow and this means we have to
_talk_.
Ingo, you only want to see the "get over yourself" part, whereas my
emphasis was and is on "talking".
> just try it, really. Even if it's a bold faced lie ;)
I'm a bad liar and as long as I don't know what the problem is, I'll make
the same mistake over and over. I have no intention of becoming a
notorious liar.
> Thomas wrote you 11 replies in 2.5 months, and some of those were
> extremely detailed. That's a far cry from not talking at all.
Some of it was indeed more verbose, but I never got very far with my
followup questions. Thomas used very often a phrase like "we analyzed the
problem and we came to the conclusion...". It's great that you and Thomas
get so well along with each other, but I'm in the disadvantage that I lack
the information context that you have. What is "extremely detailed" for
you is lacking context to create a coherent picture for me, so it's
sometimes really frustrating to pull some information out of you both.
> also, what did you expect? Basically you came out with a patch-queue
> based on ktimers, but you did not send any changes against the ktimers
> patch itself, which made it very hard to map the real finegrained
> changes you did to ktimers.
At the time I only had the huge ktimers patch from -mm to work with.
One primary target was to split out the core (without all the extra
complexity and extra cleanups) into mergable pieces, which makes it a bit
pointless to do it relative to this huge patch.
The other main target was the resolution handling, I tried very hard to
explain the details of it and why I did them this way. A discussion about
this would have required a _direct_ response, where you point out with
what you disagree. Random comments in other mails are not helping at all.
The rest are some smaller patches, which are completely independent of
hrtimer, but even for this I got no response except from Oleg.
> You provided a writeup of differences, but
> they did not fully cover the full scope of changes, relative to ktimers.
I've seen this claim now a few times, but why the hell don't you just ask
about the things that you think were missing?
bye, Roman
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
