* Jeff Garzik <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> so i'm still totally befuddled why you think that there was anything >> particularly wrong or unhelpful about me replying to the specific >> pull request that introduced a particular breakage into the kernel. >> Had i mailed to lkml with a terse "kernel build broke" message with >> just an URL to a config and the build breakage, you could rightfully >> have complained that i should have done more to properly direct my >> bugreport. But this breakage was about a PCI API change, the pull >> request had a PCI mailing list Cc:-ed, why should i have thought that >> this needs the attention of any other parties? > > Because the change required knowledge not only of PCI, but of the > hardware in question. As your patch demonstrated. > > And yes -- the original changes should have been CC'd to interested > parties as well. I'm still waiting to hear back from Alan or Bart > whether the ATA/IDE changes in that PCI pile actually work... the > original changeset even noted that relevant parties had not yet been > queried. so please tell me Jeff. If Greg, who is the super-maintainer of your code area, and who deals with your code every day and changes it every minute and hour, simply did not Cc: the SCSI list - how am i, a largely outside party in this matter, supposed to notice that 3 maintainers and 3 mailing lists in the Cc: were somehow not enough and that i was supposed to grow the already sizable Cc: list even more? Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
