On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 02:57:36PM -0500, Lyude Paul wrote: > On Fri, 2022-01-28 at 14:53 -0500, Alex Deucher wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 2:20 PM Lyude Paul <lyude@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Sigh-thank you for catching this - I had totally forgot about the umn.edu > > > ban. > > > I pushed this already but I will go ahead and send a revert for this > > > patch. > > > Will cc you on it as well. > > > > This seems short-sighted. If the patch is valid I see no reason to > > not accept it. I'm not trying to downplay the mess umn got into, but > > as long as the patch is well scrutinized and fixes a valid issue, it > > should be applied rather than leaving potential bugs in place. > > > > Yeah - I sent a revert for this, but that was mainly just to make sure I > didn't cause problems with Linus or something like that. If it's all the same > I'd much rather just leave this patch in, as looking at the code the fix seems > completely valid. You will not cause any problem at all, don't worry about this, it's not your fault or responsibility. If you think the patch is fine, that's great, no problems. But be extra careful here, treat these developers as you would with any other "they are known to send bad patches so are safe to ignore if I don't want to deal with it" group that many of us maintainers already have to defend against. thanks, greg k-h
