[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061008173445.GN30283@lug-owl.de>
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 19:34:46 +0200
From: Jan-Benedict Glaw <jbglaw@...-owl.de>
To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.19-rc1: known regressions (v2)
On Sun, 2006-10-08 19:28:59 +0200, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de> 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 <bunk@...sta.de> 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 jbglaw@...-owl.de +49-172-7608481
Signature of: If it doesn't work, force it.
the second : If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (190 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists