Re: 2.6.19-rc1: known regressions (v2)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 

On Sun, 2006-10-08 19:28:59 +0200, Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 10:45:50AM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 01:05:48AM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > >> In any case, what the fuck gives you the right to appoint yourself judge
> > >> and jury over kernel regressions?
> > 
> > On 10/8/06, Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >I've given this right myself - everyone can always send any bug list he
> > >wants to linux-kernel.
> > 
> > I don't see what the problem here is. As stated in the bug report, a
> > patch signed off by you broke something in the kernel which is not yet
> > fixed in -git. Aside from calling people "guilty", what Adrian is
> > doing is a service to us all.
> 
> It seems the word "Guilty" was considered offensive by some people?

I'd find it offensive, too, when I'd be called "guilty" because a
patch broke something that was buggy. Read the bug report: Seems it
was actually caused by a non-initialized variable introduced by a
patch to util-linux.

> This wasn't my intention, and I've replaced it with "Caused-By".

Made-visible-by :)

MfG, JBG

-- 
      Jan-Benedict Glaw      [email protected]              +49-172-7608481
 Signature of:                            If it doesn't work, force it.
 the second  :                   If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

[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]
  Powered by Linux