Note that if some person cannot be bothered to re-submit, I don't WANT the
patch.
If a person can't be bothered, as the maintainer of a piece of
software, to respond to my submissions, maybe I don't won't want to
work on that piece of software.
This all brings back horrible rememberences of an altercation the gcc
developers had, what was the result? EGCS.
So if Linus keeps on acting like a Richard Kenner, then fine, this
will be the result, the developers will go elsewhere and address the
development process problems Linus refuses to install permanent fixes
for. We had it going so well too, using Jitterbug. It was the
answer, or at worst it made things better, and now it's off for the
moment and we have the same problem again.
Maybe we have to come to terms with the fact that it is possible for a
projects size to just require that there is some mechanism to
"mechanize" the development process. This can come in two forms:
1) Something like Jitterbug
2) Letting more than 1 person be the only ones who can make direct
changes to the source
#2 is not an option to Linus, we did #1 and it worked, now #1 is gone
and we have problems again.
I didn't like when Jitterbug was disabled for code-freeze, but I
understood the decision and kept my mouth shut. But I did see this
coming up... and here it is.
Yeah, it's stressful and a pain in the ass to be Linus, but sorry it
implies a certain level of responsibility in all areas, and one of
them is addressing problems like this one.
Later,
David "on Linus's shitlist" Miller
davem@dm.cobaltmicro.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/