On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 03:33:06PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > Hi, Sven Luther wrote: > > > And sorry, upto now, your only arguments where dogma, white space and the > > monolitic nature of the patch. > > If you s/dogma/experience with handling kernel patches/, all three points > are entirely valid reasons to reject a patch. (NB: you want "were".) > > Split the thing now. You'll save yourself a whole lot of future work, > bugs, and frustration.
And in the meantime, the user gets left in the Cold. I still don't see how any of those arguments explain why not propose the patch as is, _WHILE_ working on splitting it and cleaning it up. Since you are not the first that gives me this reasoning, maybe i am stupid or something, please explain it to me in simple words. > Besides, submitting the patch Upstream requires that this work gets > done anyway. Andrew/Linus won't consider applying big one-hunk patches. Sure, but we are not discussing patches to be submitted upstream here, altough this is a worthy goal, but the patches included in our debian packages. And i do believe that service to our users should come first before submission of patches upstream, and not the other way around, as it seems is the current politic. Again, maybe i am stupid or out of touch, i seem to be the only one arguing so, and many are arguing against me, so i am starting to doubt about this. Friendly, Sven Luther