> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 2:31 AM, Artturi Alm <artturi....@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 06:32:49PM -0400, Eric Furman wrote: > >> The person didn't make a simple config change they made > >> a change to the actual kernal code. > >> Huge difference. > > > > thank you for your reply, but that's no answer to my question, and > > you have no sense for my lack of humour it seems. > > the Huge difference is between kernel and kernal code, now have you used > > config to make changes to usar code? you should test the diff i sent, if > so. > > There are a spectrum of possible changes that someone may make from > inconsequential to forked project. Your diff made running config(8) > emit a warning even if the user had made *no* changes to a provided > GENERIC config, effectively claiming that we deny support if they > don't ship a kernel theo builds, but that is *not* the case. Indeed, > we provide errata including kernel patches for the last couple > releases. We are not that dogmatic. > > What's we're saying is that while many changes have no effect on > support or will be gladly merged into the base in some form, other > changes go beyond what the project can or will support. There is no > easily stated rule for this and the effective rule changes in various > ways as our understanding changes and as the world changes. For > example, a year ago changes that would fail on static-lib-only archs > would not be accepted; now they are. Theo is saying that the world > and the project will need to change in many, many ways before > Sébastien's diff would be supported and we don't see that happening in > the foreseeable future.
I'll add something more. We already suffer from low quality in many bug reports. People very often forget to mention they have tweaks of their own. Resizing such an array could lead to many unknown consequences, which we don't want to think though. Our function in this ecosystem definately does not include dealing with other people's bullshit decisions...
