* Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
