[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch 07/76] NIU: Bump driver version and release date.

When I made the reply below I was rather tired and edgy. I would like
to explain why I commented as I did and offer an appology for wasting
your time and/or annoying you - that was never my intention.

I try to participate constructively where and when I can and one of
the ways I try to do so is by reading patches that people submit. Most
of the time I'm not qualified to comment on them and I try not to.
In this specific case I felt I knew the -stable rules well enough and
could understand the patch well enough to offer up a constructive
comment, so I did.
My Intention was simply to point out that the patch *seemed* to fall
outside what the -stable rules allowed, and my understanding was that
the rules were there for a reason - to keep -stable patches to the
very minimum required to fix bugs and only that.

When you replied the way you did I got rather irritated by the fact
that you chose to see it as an attempt to waste peoples time rather
than see it how I intended it; as an attempt to help out by reviewing
patches and point out any oddities/guideline-deviation I observed.

I should have waited to respond and certainly not written my response
while still being annoyed.

I realize now that patches like this are acceptable for -stable, so
I'll refrain from commenting on them in the future.

I hope you can accept an appology and see that I did not intend to
waste anyones time.

Kind regards,
Jesper Juhl

On 22/03/2008, Jesper Juhl <> wrote:
> On 22/03/2008, David Miller <> wrote:
> > From: "Jesper Juhl" <>
> > Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 01:10:40 +0100
> >
> >
> > > As I see it, this patch is quite trivial and does not fix any "real problem".
> > > How come this is suitable for -stable?
> > >
> > > I have no objections to the patch "as such", I just don't think it
> > > makes sense for -stable.
> >
> >
> > It makes a difference for driver maintainers when users
> > report bugs and we ask them for the version printed
> > by the driver so that we know which fixes have been
> > applied.
> >
> Ok, fair enough.
> > You know, if people are going to be jerky about this,
> > I'll just include the version bump in the actual bug
> > fixes which I sometimes do anyways.
> >
> > Thanks for bringing this up, it's a useful use of
> > everyone's time :-/
> >
> Excuse me for reading patches, trying to spot problems and thinking
> about where they are applied and what rules apply etc.
> --
> Jesper Juhl <>
> Don't top-post
> Plain text mails only, please

Jesper Juhl <>
Don't top-post
Plain text mails only, please

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-26 22:31    [W:0.194 / U:0.092 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site