lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Sep]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] Remove broken by design and by implementation devtmpfs maintenance disaster
    On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:29:18AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
    > Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> writes:
    >
    > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 01:23:39AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
    > >>
    > >> devtmpfs has numerous problems. The once I see from a quick review.
    > >
    > > <snip>
    > >
    > > I'm confused, why did you not at least cc: Kay and I on this message, if
    > > I was a paranoid person, I would think that you were somehow trying to
    > > skirt around us for some unknown reason :(
    >
    > You just aren't relevant to this discussion except where you
    > repeatedly demonstrate you aren't willing to listen to anyone who
    > hasn't drunk the devtmpfs coolaid.

    Oh, we have official team drinks now? Great, sign me up, can I pick a
    t-shirt logo as well? :)

    > If you were interested in honest review and feedback you would have
    > copied me from the second review onward. You didn't do that. Why
    > should I extend you the courtesy. This isn't your decision to make.

    I'm sorry I forgot to copy you, and the other people that provided
    feedback on the original few versions, that's my fault. I kind of
    assumed that people found the first version on their own, the updates
    would be in the same place as well. I had not kept track of the
    reviewers and commentors properly.

    My fault, and I'm sorry.

    But for you to think I was purposefully slighting you, or anyone else,
    and that slight would justify completly ignoring the original authors
    and submittors of the code, seems, well, a big streach.

    > Greg this code does not live up to the standards you have repeatedly
    > asserted are required for accepting core kernel code. Neither you
    > nor Kay show any interest in fixing even the most trivial of bugs.
    > Must less discuss alternate solutions to the problem.

    I'm really sorry, but I know of no existing bugs in this code.
    Seriously, I thought we addressed everything that was pointed out. A
    large number of people have tested this in quite different environments,
    and we got sign-off-bys by all of the boot logic infrastructure
    maintainers from the major distros, as proof of that testing.

    I don't know of any standards that we are not following here, what
    specifically are you referring to?

    thanks,

    greg k-h


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-09-18 08:09    [W:0.028 / U:29.848 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site