From: Josip Rodin <joy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 19:33:12 +0200 > On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 09:55:11AM -0700, David Miller wrote: >> > Sure, it would probably be better for you if they adjusted to your own >> > development model, and relied on you for every change that they want done, >> > and didn't object to any of your recommendations, but it's free software, >> > they choose to do things bit differently, what with all the separate lists, >> > BTS, installer, and ultimately separate users. >> >> I never said that they need to run every change they want to >> do past me, that would be rediclious. >> >> Read what I actually said. > > You said that he didn't ask you to test that kernel on your Niagaras, > instead he let the Niagara user who contacted Debian via BTS test the > change. And that has nothing to do with asking me to run every change through me. This was an issue of ability to test a bug fix. > I can't say my first impulse would have been to bother you - it > seems needless, when there's already one person seemingly available > to test - the same one who reported it. The bug log indicates that > there were several reporters, actually. If you don't have the necessary hardware and know that the sparc kernel maintainer does, it absolutely should be your impulse. The impulse definitely should not be "cower into a hole if the bug reporter doesn't respond". -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
