Re: [gentoo-dev] proposed patch

[Drake Wyrm <wyrm@haell.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1716 bytes --]

At 2005-02-21T23:40:52-0800, Greg KH <gregkh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 07:01:20PM -0800, Drake Wyrm wrote:
> > At 2005-02-21T09:58:45-0800, Greg KH <gregkh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 08:09:08AM +0100, Johan Swensson wrote:
> > > > I would like to suggest that you add
[...]
> > > No.  Get the authors to submit the patch to upstream, and then it
> > > will show up in the Gentoo kernel, as well as all other kernels.
> > > </stock>
> > > 
> > > If you submit a bug, it will get marked with the same response...
[...]
> > but this one is kept out of the main kernel tree for political
> > reasons.
> 
> And, because of that, I will always defer to the upstream kernel
> maintainers, like I would hope that you also would.

We certainly have a difference of opinion on that point. I tend to have
an instintive negative reaction toward technical decisions influenced by
political motives.

> Are you willing to put the time and effort in to maintain, forward
> port, and handle all possible bug reports in the kernel area that is
> touched by this patch?  I didn't think so :)

This is actually an excellent illustration of my point. The patch I
mentioned as an example changes almost nothing. It adds one file and
touches the makefiles so that the build process notices it. Its
inclusion would be completely benign.

All I'm trying to say is that, while a critical eye should be placed on
patches considered for the kernel, a stubborn refusal to even consider
changes may be excessive.

-- 
Batou: Hey, Major... You ever hear of "human rights"?
Kusanagi: I understand the concept, but I've never seen it in action.
  --Ghost in the Shell

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]