linux-kernel - Re: pull request: wireless-next-2.6 2009-10-28

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20091030204427.GA2962@ami.dom.local>
Date:	Fri, 30 Oct 2009 21:44:27 +0100
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To:	"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>
Cc:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: pull request: wireless-next-2.6 2009-10-28

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 11:02:24AM -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 11:06:16AM +0000, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> 
> > There are various ways to disagree, and ignoring by John questions
> > from a merited developer both in this referenced lkml and current
> > threads looks at least strange (if not offensive) as well.
> 
> Did you read the thread for which Bartlomiej provided a link earlier?
> There were ten responses (only three of them from him) in that thread.
> His comments were not ignored, they were rejected.
> 
> Ever since Bartlomiej decided to tear himself away from
> drivers/staging, he has been nothing but negative -- petty, whining,
> indignat, whatever.  Just what has he done to merit any special
> consideration here?  Why should he have any sort of veto over rt2x00?
> 
> And of all things on which to take a stand -- how dare the rt2x00 guys
> use two header files instead of three?  The nerve of those people!!!
> 
> Ridiculous...

Maybe. Different tastes for sure, so simply no good solution.

Anyway, my point was somewhere else: Davem could be a good example;-)
I simply can't imagine a thread with such concerns left completely
uncommented before merging a patch. It's not about convincing anybody.
Usually you know at least if the concern is dismissed, or valid, but
fixable. (Sometimes you can even read between lines, or explicit, what
he really thinks...)

This discussion is mainly around trying to omit a maintainer with
"higher authority". Of course it's a mortal sin! ...Except, when the
maintainer doesn't seem to respond at all.

BTW, it seems Bartlomiej's main argument in the current thread has
changed to the non-working driver, so ridiculous only if you have a
clue.

Jarek P.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/