RE: ACPI_DOCK bug: noone cares

["Brown, Len" <len.brown@intel.com>]

>> Two weeks ago, we had:
>> - a bug report
>> - a detailed description how to possibly fix this issue
>> 
>> What we did NOT have was:
>> - any reaction by the patch author or any maintainer
>>   (although with the exception of Linus, the recipients of 
>the problem
>>    description were exactly the same as the ones in this email)

Yes, I'm on this list.
No, I don't see all patches or comments unless they get sent directly
to: or cc: to me.

>> A few days later, the patch that includes this bug was included in 
>> Linus' tree.
>> 
>> Two weeks later, the bug is still present in both latest -mm 
>and Linus' 
>> tree.
>> 
>> Linus, please do a
>>   git-revert a5e1b94008f2a96abf4a0c0371a55a56b320c13e
>
>Fair enough. Reverted.

I disagree with this decision, and would like to know what
is necessary to reverse it.

>I think I'll stop accepting any ACPI patches at all that add 
>new features, as long as there doesn't seem to be anybody who reacts to

>bug-reports. We  don't need ACPI features.

If it is a requirement that I see every patch sent to the list
and not directly to me during weekends in July, then I agree
with your decision -- because I can't give you that level of service.
But surely:

1. You can e-mail me directly when you are asking me to do something.
2. deleting the driver is a somewhat Draconian response to what appears
 to be a simple Kconfig issue in rc1.

>We need somebody who answers when people like Andrew asks 
>about patches to support things like memory hotplug (which was also a
problem 
>over the last weeks). Here's a quote from Andrew from a week or so ago:

>"repeat seven times over three months with zero response.".

The memhotplug patches first hit the list March 21st -- the 1st day of
the 2.6.17 integration window.

I would have queued them for 2.6.18-rc1, but they depended
on other patches in -mm that Andrew did not send me.

Yes, I Should have mentioned that to Andrew, and acked
the patches so he could have sorted that out.

However, the only way they could have got into 2.6.18-rc1 any
earlier would be if the 2.6.17 cycle were shorter.

>It's not worth it to accept new stuff if we know it's not 
>going to get any attention ever afterwards.

If you address me directly when you are asking me to do something,
that would really help me help you.

thanks,
-Len
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/