Please do not move private replies back on list without permission; that's been poor mailing list etiquette since at least 1982. I'm *officially* done now; Dave: your partisans are cranks, and you need to get them in hand. Cheers, -- jra ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dave Howorth" <dhoworth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 12:07:28 PM > Subject: [Fwd: Re: A short digression on FOSS (Re: understanding speculative preallocation)] > Please keep the conversation on list > > To me now it sounds like you're just trolling, though I suspect you > don't intend that. I really do suggest you take some time to forget > about this topic and come back to it in a few days with a clear head > and > reread it all. Then decide whether it's worth pursuing. > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: A short digression on FOSS (Re: understanding speculative > preallocation) > Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 11:36:29 -0400 (EDT) > From: Jay Ashworth <jra@xxxxxxxxxxx> > To: Dave Howorth <dhoworth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > [ off list ] > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Dave Howorth" <dhoworth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > So the easiest way for a non-expert to describe the kernel they're > > using > > is most likely to name a distro and release, plus whatever updates > > have > > been applied. A distro-expert can translate that into the general > > age of > > the code and the commit numbers of the exact patches that have been > > applied if necessary. And that's why the FAQ > > > > http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_FAQ#Q:_What_information_should_I_include_when_reporting_a_problem.3F > > > > asks people to report the uname -a amongst a lot of other stuff. > > That's all well and good, Dave, but I've spent the last 72 hours with > Stan > tearing my face off precisely over his assertion that *the experts in > question won't be interested in doing that*: it should be *my* > responsiility. > > If they're going to make us do the work -- and this seems the > assertion > Stan, > Eric and others are making, pretty vehemently -- they need to give us > *an > end game*; a question to be asking. Or researching. > > The specific issue was "we don't like CentOS cause we work for RH and > they > ripped us off". Aside from "if you think they ripped you off, then you > don't understand FOSS well enough to be making money from it", *the > CentOS > kernel package names are the exact same as the RHEL packages*; CentOS > makes > a point of this being true because modules have to match up. > > So that seems like a red herring too. > > The short version of this is: > > We're trying to help them to help us, and they seem to be making that > as > difficult as humanly possible, and I can't understand why. > > As I said: if the kernel builder is checking out a GIT pull to build > the > modules for a given kernel SRPM, than that's what I *expect* Dave et > al > to want to know, and I can deal with go getting that number somehow. > > But why won't anyone actually *say* that? > > Cheers, > -- jra > -- > Jay R. Ashworth Baylink > jra@xxxxxxxxxxx > Designer The Things I Think > RFC 2100 > Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land > Rover DII > St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 > 647 1274 > > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@xxxxxxxxxxx Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274 _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
