On Friday 29 February 2008, Robert Millan wrote: > On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 08:18:58PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > > * Robert Millan <email@example.com> [2008-02-25 23:44]: > > > This patch adds -versatile flavour to linux-kernel-di-armel-2.6 > > > > This patch seems to miss an update to the package-list file. You can > > use the package-list file to specify that this kernel provides ext2 > > and other modules (i.e. that they are built-in). > > Thanks. Fixed and committed. Where exactly did anybody give an OK for this to be committed by you? I would say that the comments were at most an invitation to prepare a new patch and submit that for review again. Another example is the commit you did to the manual. You asked for review, but then used a minor comment from someone who's himself not actually part of the team as a justification to commit the change. It would have been much nicer if you'd left a bit more time for the actual maintainers of the manual to respond (especially when you know people are away at a conference). After you already committed I myself no longer saw any point in commenting, so I didn't. I will now probably just rewrite the text if I see a reason to do so. I really totally disagree with the way you appropriate things and am even at this point starting to consider whether your commit access to the D-I SVN repository should just be revoked. Cheers, FJP
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.