Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:04:47 -0500 | | From | William Allen Simpson <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 17/11]Optimize the upload speed for PPP connection. |
| |
David Miller wrote: > From: William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson@gmail.com> > Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 05:20:09 -0500 > >> What David may have meant, had he followed >> Documentation/ManagementStyle or had any project management skills >> what-so-ever, is that you need to follow >> Documentation/SubmittingPatches more carefully. > > Are personal attacks on me really necessary? > Actually, ironic sarcasm (juxtaposition) is a form of humor, fairly popular on such venues as "The Daily Show". :-)
> Do you want me to look closely at your patches with a high priority > when you submit them for inclusion? > Great, you're planning to start a new practice? So far, I've only been blessed with:
* 1st contact (Oct 2):
"Otherwise asking for a is absolutely pointless as we have no context in which to judge the code you're showing us."
The context (and entire previous patch) was pointed at by a link in the message, and an internet-draft, but that would have required effort (clicking and browsing).
Not exactly what I'd call "look closely at your patches".... * 2nd contact (Oct 5), replying to my post of Oct 3:
"struct tcp_sock is already WAY TOO BIG on 64-bit systems, adding 20 more bytes to it for some odd-ball feature is not something I'm willing to do, sorry."
Always delighted to know our work is an "odd-ball feature".... * 3rd contact, sending private email to you as maintainer, suggested by Andi Kleen's "On submitting kernel patches" for resolving conflicts, and getting flamed for sending private email to you!
* Recently, flamed for re-sending a query (after waiting 30 days):
"Complaining that your work isn't getting looked at in a timely manner will always have the exact opposite effect that you want, it makes people have a smaller desire to look at your stuff."
Yeah, 30 days just isn't long enough.... Fortunately, Eric Dumazet and Paul E. McKenney were really helpful (and others privately), and I thank them again! * 2 days ago, flamed again for re-sending a patch (after waiting 5 days), although you'd never Ack'd or otherwise responded.
> You may be right, but that doesn't matter if you're interested in > working together with me in the future. There are diplomatic ways to > do everything, and this wasn't one of those ways. > Working *together* would be handy! But that implies cooperation and respect -- *not* biting the newbies nor dropping the F-bomb.
|  |