David,

When I made the reply below I was rather tired and edgy. I would like
to explain why I commented as I did and offer an appology for wasting
your time and/or annoying you - that was never my intention.

I try to participate constructively where and when I can and one of
the ways I try to do so is by reading patches that people submit. Most
of the time I'm not qualified to comment on them and I try not to.
In this specific case I felt I knew the -stable rules well enough and
could understand the patch well enough to offer up a constructive
comment, so I did.
My Intention was simply to point out that the patch *seemed* to fall
outside what the -stable rules allowed, and my understanding was that
the rules were there for a reason - to keep -stable patches to the
very minimum required to fix bugs and only that.

When you replied the way you did I got rather irritated by the fact
that you chose to see it as an attempt to waste peoples time rather
than see it how I intended it; as an attempt to help out by reviewing
patches and point out any oddities/guideline-deviation I observed.

I should have waited to respond and certainly not written my response
while still being annoyed.

I realize now that patches like this are acceptable for -stable, so
I'll refrain from commenting on them in the future.

I hope you can accept an appology and see that I did not intend to
waste anyones time.


Kind regards,
  Jesper Juhl


On 22/03/2008, Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com> wrote:
quoted text
> On 22/03/2008, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
>  > From: "Jesper Juhl" <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>
>  >  Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 01:10:40 +0100
>  >
>  >
>  >  > As I see it, this patch is quite trivial and does not fix any "real problem".
>  >  > How come this is suitable for -stable?
>  >  >
>  >  > I have no objections to the patch "as such", I just don't think it
>  >  > makes sense for -stable.
>  >
>  >
>  > It makes a difference for driver maintainers when users
>  >  report bugs and we ask them for the version printed
>  >  by the driver so that we know which fixes have been
>  >  applied.
>  >
>
> Ok, fair enough.
>
>
>  >  You know, if people are going to be jerky about this,
>  >  I'll just include the version bump in the actual bug
>  >  fixes which I sometimes do anyways.
>  >
>  >  Thanks for bringing this up, it's a useful use of
>  >  everyone's time :-/
>  >
>
> Excuse me for reading patches, trying to spot problems and thinking
>  about where they are applied and what rules apply etc.
>
>
>  --
>
> Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>
>
> Don't top-post  http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
>  Plain text mails only, please      http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
>


-- 
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>
Don't top-post  http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please      http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/