Hi,
I noticed the following lines in
http://meego.gitorious.org/meego-os-base/kernel-source/blobs/master/README#line120
:
* Unless the author identified in the From: tag has a @intel.com or
@linux.intel.com address, the patch must include a Signed-off-by: or
Acked-by: header which identifi
At recommendation of Quim, I've submitted this process 'bug' at
http://bugs.meego.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1459 so we can track it better.
Maybe it'd be worth having a category for these kind of bugs/issues in
order to help open development around?
Regards,
Carsten Munk
2010/4/28 Carsten Munk :
> Hi,
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:02:57PM +0200, Carsten Munk wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed the following lines in
> http://meego.gitorious.org/meego-os-base/kernel-source/blobs/master/README#line120
> :
>
> * Unless the author identified in the From: tag has a @intel.com or
>@linux.intel.com address,
2010/4/28 Greg KH :
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:02:57PM +0200, Carsten Munk wrote:
>> Would it be possible to reword this in a manner so it does not sounds
>> as biased towards Intel employees? Ie, treating non-member
>> contributions with same process and review as member contributions.
>>
>> A s
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 05:27:00PM +0200, Carsten Munk wrote:
> I would say that is the MeeGo kernel maintainer team, which may
> include one or more Intel employees, is the people ultimately
> responsible for distribute and maintaining.
Since when has anyone proposed a "MeeGo kernel maintainer te
When exactly did Intel solely become responsible for kernel tree? Besides
that, why would a MeeGo kernel maintainer team be decided by Intel? Just
like everything else, wouldn't it be better making it a proposal for the
TSG? Certainly if the MeeGo kernel tree is only maintained by one company
this
A: No.
Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?
http://daringfireball.net/2007/07/on_top
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 01:35:06AM +0930, Bradley Smith wrote:
> When exactly did Intel solely become responsible for kernel tree?
Um, since when did they not?
> Besides that, why would a MeeGo kernel
Hi Greg,
On Wed, 2010-04-28 at 16:59 +0200, ext Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:02:57PM +0200, Carsten Munk wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I noticed the following lines in
> > http://meego.gitorious.org/meego-os-base/kernel-source/blobs/master/README#line120
> > :
> >
> > * Unless the autho
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 1:41 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> Um, since when did they not?
That is obviously a way of avoiding the original question. Where was
any decision made by the community or the TSG that Intel was suppose
to take sole responsibility of the MeeGo kernel?
> How are things "supposed to
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 02:06:40AM +0930, Bradley Smith wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 1:41 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> > Um, since when did they not?
>
> That is obviously a way of avoiding the original question. Where was
> any decision made by the community or the TSG that Intel was suppose
> to ta
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 07:28:13PM +0300, Ameya Palande wrote:
> > As Intel is ultimately responsible for distributing and maintaining this
> > kernel tree, having someone within intel to "own" each patch in the same
> > manner makes lots of sense as well.
>
> In Moblin days this was a perfect arg
Hi Greg,
On Wed, 2010-04-28 at 19:19 +0200, ext Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 07:28:13PM +0300, Ameya Palande wrote:
> > > As Intel is ultimately responsible for distributing and maintaining this
> > > kernel tree, having someone within intel to "own" each patch in the same
> > > manner
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 09:03:15PM +0300, Ameya Palande wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-04-28 at 19:19 +0200, ext Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 07:28:13PM +0300, Ameya Palande wrote:
> > > > As Intel is ultimately responsible for distributing and maintaining this
> > > > kernel tree, having some
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>> Naturally all the bugs related to this should be assigned to Nokia
>> instead of Intel. So I fail to understand your argument about Intel
>> doing all the work and all the kernel bugs being assigned to Intel.
>
> I'm saying that Intel is currently
Hi Greg,
On Wed, 2010-04-28 at 20:10 +0200, ext Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 09:03:15PM +0300, Ameya Palande wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-04-28 at 19:19 +0200, ext Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 07:28:13PM +0300, Ameya Palande wrote:
> > > > > As Intel is ultimately responsibl
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>
> I'm saying that Intel is currently the owner of the MeeGo kernel
> package, and that if you create a bug in the meego bugzilla against the
> kernel package, it gets automatically assigned to an Intel developer.
...
> Hopefully in the future there
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Robinson Tryon
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>>
>> I'm saying that Intel is currently the owner of the MeeGo kernel
>> package, and that if you create a bug in the meego bugzilla against the
>> kernel package, it gets automatically assig
On 4/28/2010 9:05, Bradley Smith wrote:
When exactly did Intel solely become responsible for kernel tree?
It's not Intel solely being responsible.
But Intel is a large contributor to both the kernel and meego;
and obviously many of the meego maintainters will be from Intel, just like
many main
Arjan wrote:
>
> It's not Intel solely being responsible.
>
[...]
>
> Also I don't understand what the beef is.
The problem, as I see it, is that *any* Intel employee can bypass the sign-off
procedure for the MeeGo kernel, whereas no-one else can.
Intel may have internal processes that prevent t
On 4/28/2010 13:29, Andrew Flegg wrote:
Arjan wrote:
It's not Intel solely being responsible.
[...]
Also I don't understand what the beef is.
The problem, as I see it, is that *any* Intel employee can bypass the sign-off
procedure for the MeeGo kernel, whereas no-one else can.
Intel may
Hi,
Greg KH wrote:
> No, not at all. Look at the kernel package, the bugzilla owners of
> kernel bugs, and who is doing all the work and "ownership" here.
So your argument is that the people who are doing the maintainership of
the kernel must sign off on patches to the kernel. That seems perfect
On 04/28/2010 09:10 PM, ext Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 09:03:15PM +0300, Ameya Palande wrote:
Naturally all the bugs related to this should be assigned to Nokia
instead of Intel. So I fail to understand your argument about Intel
doing all the work and all the kernel bugs being assi
> -Original Message-
> From: meego-dev-boun...@meego.com
> [mailto:meego-dev-boun...@meego.com] On Behalf Of Dave Neary
> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 4:06 PM
> To: Greg KH
> Cc: meego-dev
> Subject: Re: [MeeGo-dev] Kernel process comment
>
> So your argument
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Wang, Yong Y wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> This is indeed a documentation bug and we will fix it. No Intel employees
> will bypass the process. All changes, including those from Intel employees,
> will be scrutinized by MeeGo kernel maintainer team which only consists of
On 04/28/10 17:59, ext Greg KH wrote:
As Intel is ultimately responsible for distributing and maintaining this
kernel tree, having someone within intel to "own" each patch in the same
manner makes lots of sense as well.
This is not true. Where did you get that one ?
Nokia and Intel are joint
On 04/28/10 23:29, ext Andrew Flegg wrote:
Arjan wrote:
It's not Intel solely being responsible.
[...]
Also I don't understand what the beef is.
The problem, as I see it, is that *any* Intel employee can bypass the sign-off
procedure for the MeeGo kernel, whereas no-one else can.
Intel
On 04/28/10 21:39, ext Robin Burchell wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Robinson Tryon
wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Greg KH wrote:
I'm saying that Intel is currently the owner of the MeeGo kernel
package, and that if you create a bug in the meego bugzilla against the
kernel
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 2:47 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> I'll throw it back the other way, is there any decision made that all
> packages must go through such a process to determine the owner of them?
To my knowledge this is suppose to apart of what the TSG covers, and
to my knowledge, the TSG is suppos
> -Original Message-
> From: surreal.w...@gmail.com [mailto:surreal.w...@gmail.com] On Behalf
> Of Robin Burchell
> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 10:54 PM
> To: Wang, Yong Y
> Cc: Dave Neary; Greg KH; meego-dev
> Subject: Re: [MeeGo-dev] Kernel process comment
>
&
On 2010-04-29, 16:06 +0800, Dave Neary wrote:
> What people are taking issue with is that (a) being an employee of Intel
> is not sufficient to make you a MeeGo kernel maintainer and (b) in
> theory, at least, being an employee of Intel is not required to be a
> MeeGo kernel maintainer either.
>
>
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 12:03:17PM +0800, Yin Kangkai wrote:
> We have no problem to add others outside of Intel into the MeeGo
> kernel maintainer team, actually we welcome that, as long as he can
> take the responsibilities.
Great, how does one go about signing themselves up to do this?
thanks,
On 4/29/2010 21:16, Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 12:03:17PM +0800, Yin Kangkai wrote:
We have no problem to add others outside of Intel into the MeeGo
kernel maintainer team, actually we welcome that, as long as he can
take the responsibilities.
Great, how does one go about signing t
Hi,
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> (needs a project structure to be more formalized as well as various
> legal contributor agreements created and agreed on by a whole bunch of
> lawyers)
Why? Isn't the MeeGo kernel GPL v2 too? Or are you talking about an "I
certify that I have the authority to submit
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 10:17:14PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On 4/29/2010 21:16, Greg KH wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 12:03:17PM +0800, Yin Kangkai wrote:
>>> We have no problem to add others outside of Intel into the MeeGo
>>> kernel maintainer team, actually we welcome that, as long a
34 matches
Mail list logo
