From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S264566AbRFMHXf>; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 03:23:35 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S264567AbRFMHXP>; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 03:23:15 -0400
Received: from warden.digitalinsight.com ([208.29.163.2]:55448 "HELO
	warden.diginsite.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP
	id <S264566AbRFMHXJ>; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 03:23:09 -0400
From: David Lang <david.lang@digitalinsight.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 23:11:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Is this still the linux-kernel list?
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0106122304440.26275-100000@dlang.diginsite.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

I ask this (tounge in cheek) becouse some of the comments I have seen this
month seem so out of place.

first we had the 'this portion of the kernel is not subject to change by
anyone but me' post

now we have the 'code from this company or anyone working there is not
acceptable (now matter how well written) and may not even be looked at'

this sure doesn't seem like the same list that I have been reading for the
last four years.

remember guys, it's supposed to be about the code. As long as the code is
under an acceptable license who it's from or what it's going to touch
isn't supposed to be the issue, the issue is supposed to be 'is this code
an improvement (in performance, style, algorithm, etc combined)' if it is
it makes it in.

also I think it's fair to point out that maintainers who were perceived as
getting to possesive about their 'piece' of the kernel have been replaced
before, don't work your way into a corner and encourage someone to replace
you (for one thing the new guy makes mistakes as they are learning things
and it's painful for the rest of us :-)

David Lang