On Monday 22 June 2009, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > I'm really tired of this kind of hostility towards IDE changes and I > also don't have time for such unproductive discussions. I can see your PoV, but OTOH I think you'll have to agree that having a driver break very early in the 2.6.29 cycle and not finding out about it until 2 full cycles later is not a good thing. Although PATA has its own problems and the whole switch from IDE to PATA has had much more than its fair share of issues, it is a fact that most distros and users _are_ switching to the PATA drivers. The only reason I ran into this is because Debian is one of the very few who has not yet done so and my U10 is one of the few boxes I run a distro kernel on. Your and Borislav's (and others) cleanup efforts have been huge and I've absolutely no doubt that they have brought major structural improvements to the IDE subsystem. One can but wonder whether PATA would have happened at all if that effort had started 5 years or so earlier... But the problem remains that getting enough (especially timely) testing will be an ever increasing problem for the IDE drivers, simply because most users, and especially those users who do kernel testing during development cycles, no longer use them. For that reason I think that David's standpoint that IDE should be treated as a purely legacy subsystem makes sense. Let me finish by joining others in thanking you for your huge efforts over the past years and complimenting you on the graceful way you're allowing this maintainer change to happen. I hope you will find a new challenge in the kernel; it would be a great pity to lose your skills and dedication. Cheers, FJP -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
