> On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 11:05:43AM +0100,
tvrtko.ursulin@sophos.com wrote:
> > Greg KH wrote on 05/08/2008 21:26:21:
> >
> > > > [JON PRESS] I wouldn't call it lazy, actually. It's more like
> > > > "economical" or "ergonomic" -- or, dare I say it -- "user-friendly."
> > In
> > > > this case, the users are the AV vendors who will have to write to the
> > > > API that will come out of this spec. We will be more inclined to
> > > > appreciate the SDK (for want of a better term) if it covers all the
> > > > bases, rather than force us to go elsewhere for some of our
> > > > requirements. When we write SDKs, we try to make sure that our users
> > > > will find whatever they need.
> > >
> > > But realize that you are adding an overhead on us, the kernel community,
> > > to make your life easier. We are the ones that are taking our time to
> > > review and comment on this code. We are the ones who will have to live
> > > with this code for forever, and maintain it over the lifetime of linux.
> > > So far, you all have shown no willingness to give anything back to us at
> > > all.
> >
> > We all? How is that true? I for example wrote some code and am willing to
> > help maintain it if it gets accepted.
>
> You did? I didn't see any patches from you here, did I just happen to
> miss them?
>
> If Eric's code was based on yours, that's great, but it didn't imply
> maintenance, especially as it doesn't look like your original patches
> much :)
