Re: [git pull] drm request 3
On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 08:52:35PM +, Alan Cox wrote: They want the benefits of lots of testers, without wanting to be courteous to those testers. Except for the small rather important detail that the Nouveau developers didn't ask for it to be merged in the first place. *Someone* on the Red Hat/Fedora team made the decision to make it available on a very popular distribution to get more testing. And they did it without putting in the necessary versioning so that kernel testers could test upstream kernels. That, in my book, is an anti-social thing to do. Fedora isn't alone, of course; Ubuntu does this as well, and worse yet, with proprietary binary drivers. But just because Ubuntu does something worse, doesn't mean that Fedora should get a free pass for what they did. - Ted -- Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev -- ___ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
Re: [git pull] drm request 3
On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 11:28:16AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: On Sat, 6 Mar 2010, Sergio Monteiro Basto wrote: On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 09:40 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: Why are people making excuses for bad programming and bad technology? Is not bad technology is new technology, the API have to change faster , unless you want wait 2 years until get stable . F*ck me, but people are being dense. Nah, they're just being lazy, selfish b*stards, that's all. :-( They want the benefits of lots of testers, without wanting to be courteous to those testers. - Ted -- Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev -- ___ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
Re: [git pull] drm request 3
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 06:04:34PM +0200, Daniel Stone wrote: So you're saying that there's no way to develop any reasonable body of code for the Linux kernel without committing to keeping your ABI absolutely rock-solid stable for eternity, no exceptions, ever? Cool, that worked really well for Xlib. No, that's not what people are saying. What people are saying is, avoid flag days. Deprecate things over a 6-12 month time period. We have lots of really good interfaces for doing that. You say you don't want to do that? Then keep it to your self and don't get it dropped into popular distributions like Fedora or Ubuntu. You want a larger pool of testers? Great! The price you need to pay for that is to be able to do some kind of of ABI versioning so that you don't have drop dead flag days. If you don't want to be a good citizen, then prepared to have people call you out for, well, not being a good OSS citizen. - Ted -- Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev -- ___ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
Re: [git pull] drm request 3
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 05:04:14PM +, Alan Cox wrote: You can only see it as malicious if you assume they ever had some reason to keep compatibility or had promised it somewhere. Quite the reverse happened, and they never asked to be upstream in the first place. The reason why this thread is inspiring so much traffic is because it's fundamentally about community norms. There are plenty of things that are not illegal, but which are at the same time anti-social. For example, there are all sorts of rules, if you are a researcher, about experimenting on human subjects. Many of those restrictions aren't codified in law, but if you violate them, other researches will say that you are a bad person, a bad researcher, and refuse to associate with you. And you might well lose your funding in the future --- but it's not illegal. If we are only talking about obligations under the GPL, sure, no one violated copyright licenses. But what *did* happen is someone basically said, I want to experiment on a whole bunch of users, but I don't want to spend the effort to do things in the right way. I want to take short cuts; I don't want to worry about the fact that it will be impossible to test kernels without pulling Frankenstein combinations of patches between Fedora 13 and Fedora 12. It's much like people who drill oil in the Artic Ocean, but use single-hulled tankers and then leave so much toxic spillage in their wake, but then say, hey, the regulations said what we did was O.K. Go away; don't bother us. Distro's that want to have a good reputation need to have a higher standard than, hey, it's allowed by the GPL. And maybe if we are sinking to the point where people are going to use stable means ABI breakages are allowed, we need to change the rules, since people want to quote rules as opposed to just being good community members. If you want lots of testers, then you need to be treat the testers, and the other developers in our development community with respect. I think the real problem was that Fedora and the Neauveu community are acting incredibly selfishly. They only care about their narrow point of view, and don't care about the pain they are inflicting on the kernel development process and other kernel developers. This is _legal_. It is, however, anti-social. - Ted -- Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev -- ___ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
Re: [git pull] drm request 3
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 11:38:46AM -0800, Corbin Simpson wrote: If distros want to run weird experiments on their users, let them! Sure, sometimes bad things happen, but sometimes good things happen too. ConsoleKit, DeviceKit, HAL, NetworkManager, KMS, yaird, dracut, Plymouth, the list goes on and on. So what distro would you recommend for people who want to do kernel development, do kernel testing, and do kernel bisects to help us find bugs? Are you basically saying, Kernel people shouldn't use Fedora? So what should we use instead? - Ted -- Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev -- ___ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
Re: [git pull] drm
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 08:20:57PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: Well the main thing was I wasn't mean to discuss possible legal issues and still don't have permission, you know as well as I do once lawyers are involved you have to keep out of things until they deal with them. The thing which really surprises me is that if there are legally dubious issues, why on *earth* did Red Hat allow Fedora to ship said code? - Ted -- Return on Information: Google Enterprise Search pays you back Get the facts. http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev -- ___ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
