| 1 |
At 2005-02-21T23:40:52-0800, Greg KH <gregkh@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 07:01:20PM -0800, Drake Wyrm wrote: |
| 3 |
> > At 2005-02-21T09:58:45-0800, Greg KH <gregkh@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 08:09:08AM +0100, Johan Swensson wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > > I would like to suggest that you add |
| 6 |
[...] |
| 7 |
> > > No. Get the authors to submit the patch to upstream, and then it |
| 8 |
> > > will show up in the Gentoo kernel, as well as all other kernels. |
| 9 |
> > > </stock> |
| 10 |
> > > |
| 11 |
> > > If you submit a bug, it will get marked with the same response... |
| 12 |
[...] |
| 13 |
> > but this one is kept out of the main kernel tree for political |
| 14 |
> > reasons. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> And, because of that, I will always defer to the upstream kernel |
| 17 |
> maintainers, like I would hope that you also would. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
We certainly have a difference of opinion on that point. I tend to have |
| 20 |
an instintive negative reaction toward technical decisions influenced by |
| 21 |
political motives. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> Are you willing to put the time and effort in to maintain, forward |
| 24 |
> port, and handle all possible bug reports in the kernel area that is |
| 25 |
> touched by this patch? I didn't think so :) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
This is actually an excellent illustration of my point. The patch I |
| 28 |
mentioned as an example changes almost nothing. It adds one file and |
| 29 |
touches the makefiles so that the build process notices it. Its |
| 30 |
inclusion would be completely benign. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
All I'm trying to say is that, while a critical eye should be placed on |
| 33 |
patches considered for the kernel, a stubborn refusal to even consider |
| 34 |
changes may be excessive. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Batou: Hey, Major... You ever hear of "human rights"? |
| 38 |
Kusanagi: I understand the concept, but I've never seen it in action. |
| 39 |
--Ghost in the Shell |
Archives