* Michael Buesch <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The testers who did nothing but reported that the new driver did not
> > work on their hardware.
>
> Which testers?
right in this thread Ray Lee is reporting:
| | Digging a little farther into it, it looks like b43 is barfing
| | partway through init as the firmware file it's looking for has
| | changed names. Perhaps that's the issue. I'll take a longer look at
| | this all tomorrow.
you are really in denial of reality. Just re-read this thread. Upon
re-reading this thread, try to imagine that you are in place of Ray Lee
(might be hard), that you had a working bcm43xx driver and that now you
try to get b43 to work. You are not a kernel hacker who knows this
driver, just an advanced user who'd like to give you some more feedback
about your shiny new code. From that perspective, do you think your
replies were fine, constructive and involved the tester? I sure read
them as dismissive, they had an annoyed tone (i'm not sure why - he was
trying to get _YOUR_ code to work) and were borderline arrogant. Looking
at the replies from Ray Lee it sure seemed to me he had a similar
impression. In place of Ray Lee, would you report new bugs to the
maintainer of b43? I sure as hell would avoid it if i could. Do you
think such incidents help Linux in the long run?
and you even claim:
> Ray Lee didn't even install the firmware. So it can't work by
> definition. That is not my fault.
which questions your basic skills of reading or of empathy. Why is a
reasonable firmware blob not included in the kernel? If not, why doesnt
the b43 driver warn in the dmesg (where Ray Lee did look) that no
firmware was loaded? These are basic driver usability issues, and of
course they are your fault too.
> > Yes, you can then "unsupport it" in spite and be a prick about it in
> > general but that will only talk of your own personal qualities and
> > will sharply reduce your credibility as a maintainer (and eventually
> > hinder your ability to introduce new code) - users will still have
> > the code available and will have a chance to fix the driver that
> > happens to work. (and perhaps another, capable, but friendler
> > maintainer arises.) And that old code will be a clot to drag around,
> > hindering your 'new' wireless code all along.
>
> So new code is included in the Linux kernel based only on political
> considerations instead on technical?
huh? This is nothing "political". It's the basic rule of maintenance:
try to be a good maintainer, involve people, forgive their newbie
mistakes. It's like the driving principle of Intenret protocols: be
conservative at what you xmit and be liberal at what you rx.
Ingo
--
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]
