Messages in this thread | | | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | RE: x86 BIOS interface for partitioning and system serial number on SGI UV | Date | Tue, 5 Aug 2008 10:24:42 -0700 |
| |
For code that is ready you should of course have a reasonable expectation that the code should go in in a timely manner. Anything other than that would be blatantly unfair. What I have reacted to is (a) the pushing of code which is obviously not even complete, and (b) demanding that *other* people prioritize you particular problems. Both of these are blatantly abusive.
-- Sent from my mobile phone (pardon any lack of formatting)
-----Original Message----- From: Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 8:56 To: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> Cc: Kyle Moffett <kyle@moffetthome.net>; Russ Anderson <rja@sgi.com>; mingo@elte.hu; tglx@linutronix.de; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Jack Steiner <steiner@sgi.com> Subject: Re: x86 BIOS interface for partitioning and system serial number on SGI UV
H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Mike Travis wrote: >> >> Hi Kyle, >> >> As I'm very new to this development arena, could you explain a bit more >> on why this is considered "bad manners"? >> >> I'm not speaking of any particular change, but there are some >> realities in >> bringing a new product to market that depends heavily on new "features" >> being accepted into a specific kernel release. I certainly do not want >> to "taint" any kernel code (and I'm always amazed at the dedication of >> so many individuals to insure this doesn't happen), but the line between >> acceptability (and not) seems to waver all over the place... ;-) >> > > It's because it's your responsibility to get the code in by whenever you > need it to, but trying to push unfinished code with the motivation "we > need it in by <release>" violates the development model *and* is just > plain rude. > > This comes down to the old saying "lack of planning on your part does > not constitute an emergency on my part." > > In other words, if you want to push code in by a specific release, the > code needs to be *done* and properly submitted. Submitting code that > has a big "real code goes here" comment, is ridiculous. > > Unfortunately we have seen a *lot* of that from several people at SGI > over the last year. > > -hpa
Hi Peter,
Ok, thanks, I do see your point (very clearly), as I prepare yet another "we really, really need this" patch... ;-)
[ok, it's only a led driver and the world won't stop if it doesn't show up in the kernel... ;-)]
Cheers, Mike
| |