From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-ey0-f174.google.com ([209.85.215.174]:36722 "EHLO mail-ey0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757131Ab2DMXSe convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Apr 2012 19:18:34 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20120413230525.GA13995@burratino> References: <20120412011313.GA23764@kroah.com> <20120412144626.GA14868@kroah.com> <20120413105746.10ffb120@stein> <20120413154216.476a02ac@stein> <20120413230525.GA13995@burratino> Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 02:18:33 +0300 Message-ID: (sfid-20120414_011854_192269_E4F76725) Subject: Re: [ 00/78] 3.3.2-stable review From: Felipe Contreras To: Jonathan Nieder Cc: Stefan Richter , Adrian Chadd , Greg KH , Sergio Correia , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, linux-wireless Mailing List , Sujith Manoharan , "ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org" , "John W. Linville" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 2:05 AM, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Felipe Contreras wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Stefan Richter wrote: > >>> If you do not like to wait for Linus and Greg, you simply have to derive >>> an own kernel which additionally contains your preferred fixes. >> >> Yes, because clearly everybody thinks the process is perfect, and >> criticizing it is heresy. > > Close.  Not everyone.  For example, you do not think the process is > perfect. So you think the process is *perfect*? I would have expected reasonable people to know that nothing is perfect, realize the sarcasm, and meditate for a second. But it seems expecting somebody to agree the process is not perfect is too much to ask. > I don't think Stefan meant the above as tongue-in-cheek, for what it's > worth.  Another stable kernel with different rules really would be an > interesting exercise, and would probably fulfill a need for a certain > audience. > > It's not like nobody does that already, anyway.  For example, I hear > Fedora has a kernel that they maintain well for a different audience, > using different rules. Of course, although the difference with the stable kernel would be very small if the only thing added is an extra rule for acceptance: "It reverts an earlier patch to 'stable'." But "we do this, and if you don't like it you can do whatever you want" is not a valid argument in favor of the status quo, even though it's used a lot in open source, and it's true, and there's nothing wrong with that... I yet have to see an answer to my arguments, and not a regurgitated answer for something nobody is proposing. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Felipe Contreras Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 02:18:33 +0300 Subject: [ath9k-devel] [ 00/78] 3.3.2-stable review In-Reply-To: <20120413230525.GA13995@burratino> References: <20120412011313.GA23764@kroah.com> <20120412144626.GA14868@kroah.com> <20120413105746.10ffb120@stein> <20120413154216.476a02ac@stein> <20120413230525.GA13995@burratino> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 2:05 AM, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Felipe Contreras wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Stefan Richter wrote: > >>> If you do not like to wait for Linus and Greg, you simply have to derive >>> an own kernel which additionally contains your preferred fixes. >> >> Yes, because clearly everybody thinks the process is perfect, and >> criticizing it is heresy. > > Close. ?Not everyone. ?For example, you do not think the process is > perfect. So you think the process is *perfect*? I would have expected reasonable people to know that nothing is perfect, realize the sarcasm, and meditate for a second. But it seems expecting somebody to agree the process is not perfect is too much to ask. > I don't think Stefan meant the above as tongue-in-cheek, for what it's > worth. ?Another stable kernel with different rules really would be an > interesting exercise, and would probably fulfill a need for a certain > audience. > > It's not like nobody does that already, anyway. ?For example, I hear > Fedora has a kernel that they maintain well for a different audience, > using different rules. Of course, although the difference with the stable kernel would be very small if the only thing added is an extra rule for acceptance: "It reverts an earlier patch to 'stable'." But "we do this, and if you don't like it you can do whatever you want" is not a valid argument in favor of the status quo, even though it's used a lot in open source, and it's true, and there's nothing wrong with that... I yet have to see an answer to my arguments, and not a regurgitated answer for something nobody is proposing. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras