Hi,
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Traditionally that responsibility is in the hands of whose who break it in
> > the first place
>
> If that person cannot reproduce the problem but another skilled kernel
> developer can then it would make sense for he-who-can-reproduce-it to do
> some work.
>
> Still, I doubt if that's the case here.
>
>
> Is the below correct?
>
> Old behaviour:
>
> a) press alt
> b) press sysrq
> c) release alt
> d) press T
> e) release T
> f) release sysrq
>
> New behaviour:
>
> a) press alt
> b) press sysrq
> c) release sysrq
> d) press T
> e) release T
> f) release alt
>
> If so, then the old behaviour was weird and the new behaviour is sensible.
It may be weird, but it was documented and people know about it.
> What, actually, is the problem?
It changes the behaviour, it will annoy the hell out of people like me who
have to deal with different kernels and expect this to just work. :-(
Since then has it been acceptable to just go ahead and break stuff? This
problem doesn't really look unsolvable, so why is my request to fix the
damn thing so unreasonable?
bye, Roman
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
