On Sun, 9 Jul 2006, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > Two weeks ago, we had: > - a bug report > - a detailed description how to possibly fix this issue > > What we did NOT have was: > - any reaction by the patch author or any maintainer > (although with the exception of Linus, the recipients of the problem > description were exactly the same as the ones in this email) > > A few days later, the patch that includes this bug was included in > Linus' tree. > > Two weeks later, the bug is still present in both latest -mm and Linus' > tree. > > Linus, please do a > git-revert a5e1b94008f2a96abf4a0c0371a55a56b320c13e Fair enough. Reverted. I think I'll stop accepting any ACPI patches at all that add new features, as long as there doesn't seem to be anybody who reacts to bug-reports. We don't need ACPI features. We need somebody who answers when people like Andrew asks about patches to support things like memory hotplug (which was also a problem over the last weeks). Here's a quote from Andrew from a week or so ago: "repeat seven times over three months with zero response.". It's not worth it to accept new stuff if we know it's not going to get any attention ever afterwards. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
