On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 11:17:06PM +0200, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 08:08:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > I am still a bit disgusted of seeing a bug report i provided to ubuntu, with
> > patch and all the proper research immediately after the breezy beta go
> > unanswered and uncared for though, so this may color my relationship with
> > ubuntu, but i did also personally remove myself from all ubuntu channels and
> > lists in order to not bother you with my personal issues, so seeing matthew
> > bring this in here is i believe not correct.
>
> Sven,
> The following is technically a well-formed diff:
>
> --- init/main.c.orig 2006-03-15 23:11:48.000000000 +0200
> +++ init/main.c 2006-03-15 23:12:23.000000000 +0200
> @@ -653,6 +653,9 @@
>
> static int init(void * unused)
> {
> + char *foo = NULL, *bar = NULL;
> + strdup(bar, foo);
> +
> lock_kernel();
> /*
> * init can run on any cpu.
>
> However I don't think you'd be right to hold a grudge against anyone
> who refused to apply it. If Matthew raised some issues with your patch,
> why did you not fix them? Surely removing a debugging printk and moving
Because he raised them after there was no way for me to change anything about
it, and the only way was 'wait 6 month for the dapper release', when i
submitted the patch immediately after the first beta, one full month before
the release, and this exact patch was asked by the ubuntu kernel team from me
after the breezy-1 release.
Providing patch, doing the work, just to have them ignored is a really
frustrating thing to happen, don't you agree ?
> the #include to the head of the file would've been pretty obvious.
Sure, but then why was i not told that, nobody even commented on the patch,
and seriously, any decent kernel hacker would recognize this problem at the
first glance, and either fix it or put a comment in the bug report for the
submitter to fix it.
> It's not an isolated event, either. My refusal to apply a patch which
> was unprecedented in the xorg packaging, for an issue that I feel (with
> not insignificant justification) is a purely hardware issue was
> presented as me hating on Pegasos. Similarly, your refusal to fix the
> patch you provided was also presented as the kernel team despising you
> and the Pegasos. (Money being paid or no. Principles are principles,
> mmm?)
Well, if you remember well, we did solve this issue, did discuss it, and did
solve it to everyone satisfaction, did we not ?
I believe that in a volunteer world like debian, plainly ignoring the work of
others who provide patches is the most despissable and insulting thing that
can happen, since contrary to paid workers, we all sacrifice our free time to
make this happen.
See the frustration you went over which led to your problems with the X strike
force, and i guess you would understand how i felt about this. For example, i
left all involvement with the X strike force, when i submitted a patch
(trivial patch, i committed almost all of it upstream), to enable the driver
SDK to work with the debian packages, and it was 3+ years long 'not quite
time'. Or when i had to flamewar during 6 month with Ethan Benson, before he
allowed the debian yaboot maintainer to even look at the amiga partition table
support patch.
> You seem to have this horrendous victim syndrome, exacerbated by bizzare
> claims you have better things to do with your time[0] when you throw a
> hissy fit and leave. Turning everyone's legitimate concerns into your
> code into hate crusades against you and Genesi isn't in the least
> productive, and I really wish you'd grow up and let it go.
Nope, this i disclaim. i think there may be legitimate concern sometimes, but
other times there is just plain unexcusable behaviour disguised as legitimate
concern. This is clearly the case with this current jonas case, and i invite
you to read the bug report in question.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
