On Mon, 28 Sep 1998, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, 29 Sep 1998, Kurt Garloff wrote: > > And you think it's a good idea to have the linux community divide into to > > parts: The Linus party and the VGER party?
> No. I've tried to tell the vger people that.
> The problem is that some people think that once they are in vger, they're > golden and no longer have to worry. Those kinds of people I don't care > about, I don't want to hear about, and I refuse to discuss with.
> David Miller spent an inordinate amount of time in getting the crap out of > vger. That's good. He then sent me patches to sync up the parts he thought > were fine. That's even better.
Right. And he left drivers/video for Martin and me.
> The problem is that there's a ton of patches on vger, and some people do > not understand the issue of "Code Freeze". They think that just because > they had access to the CVS tree, they got under the code freeze somehow. I > won't bother educating them any more.
If `Code Freeze' means we are not allowed to sent fixes for non-Intel platforms, then there's something wrong, IMNSHO.
Remember that you didn't want to integrate the abstract console driver and the support for frame buffer devices until 2.1.107. Before that, all non-Intel architectures were using different graphical console drivers. No one wanted to work on converting their drivers to frame buffer devices before frame buffer devices were accepted in 2.1.107. That was the well-known `chicken and egg' problem.
Of course this created a bunch of patches for the other architectures after 2.1.107! And 2.1.107 is just 3 months ago.
And now all those different graphical console drivers are gone. Frame buffer devices are used on m68k, AXP, PPC, ARM, SPARC, MIPS (and even on Intel; any other architectures left?).
> I'm still open to bug fixes, but they had better not be "go look at vger, > some of the stuff there is bug-fixes". Anybody who thinks that that kind > of approach works is pretty misguided.
IIRC Martin Mares sent you a patch for drivers/video lately, which was not accepted. If this didn't happen, please forget what I said and please accept my apologies.
I put up a patch for drivers/video between the official 2.1.123 and the current vger tree at
Linus, you will get a private copy in your mailbox.
I don't know whether it will compile or work. I don't care whether it will compile or work. 2.1.123 doesn't compile neither, so it doesn't matter. At least it will get closer to working. It shouldn't make any difference for you guys who run with CONFIG_FB=n.
It's not a `hundred-megabyte patch', only 701492 bytes.
Greetings,
Geert
-- Geert Uytterhoeven Geert.Uytterhoe...@cs.kuleuven.ac.be Wavelets, Linux/{m68k~Amiga,PPC~CHRP} http://www.cs.kuleuven.ac.be/~geert/ Department of Computer Science -- Katholieke Universiteit Leuven -- Belgium
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
On Mon, 28 Sep 1998, Shawn Leas wrote: > > Please don't waste your time on creating these patches. These things are > > functional in the vger tree (ftp://vger.rutgers.edu/pub/linux/README.CVS).
> Linus: Please please please please please sync the official tree > up with vger, I and many others can't use CVS, and it seems > that it is increasingly the only way to get a functional kernel > with framebuffer support.
We have daily vger kernel CVS tarballs at
ftp.lmh.ox.ac.uk:/pub/linux/kernel/
For what it's worth.
When I can be bothered I'll have it creating daily diffs, too...
Matthew.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
I won't disable it, I will just hope that responsible people send me reasonable patches. I put my foot down on the hundred-megabyte patches I was continually getting from the console people, and I want to have the problem fixed as much as the next person.
Martin does exactly this. But sorry, there are driver updates for platforms you don't give a crap about (ie. non-Intel) and this is where the immense size comes from.
Martin and Geert are quite diligent about fixing all bugs reported to them, and now that it has all accumulated you still are not taking the patch. What do you want him to do? It is at a state where you can't just "pick out 200 lines of the fixes" because it simply is a sizable patch. Apply it and be done with it, then you can be sure any further changes will be tiny. Currently it is at a stale-mate. People are maintaining this code, and if you block patches they can't do their job. I ask you to be a part of the solution instead of the problem.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
I'm still open to bug fixes, but they had better not be "go look at vger, some of the stuff there is bug-fixes". Anybody who thinks that that kind of approach works is pretty misguided.
No one is telling you that, _everyone_ who maintains the video driver layer is telling you "look at Martins patch", nothing more. If you continually ignore him, you are the roadblock, plain and simple. So instead of being a roadblock, please express your grievences about Martin's attempt to merge things with you.
I repeat "There is nothing else in the VGER tree" that you won't take "as is" other than this video patch. The rest is "port stuff" that doesn't touch any Intel or generic code.
Stop pointing fingers towards "vger", people are sending you patches, continually, and are being ignored and not being told why _even_ after you had told them you would accept such a patch for the video subsystem.
(The missing piece of this whole puzzle, which Linus is conveniently not mentioning, is that a month or so ago he told Martin in email that he would take _one_ more large video driver subsystem patch to get the updated drivers and bug fixes in, and only one. Now, he is not living up to his word.)
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
On Tue, Sep 29, 1998 at 01:10:45PM +0800, Debursky, Po-Sheng Ko wrote: > I care !
> In a family, should have one person to rule. It's from God. > Don't break rule, Jon.
> Linus, go ahead !
You missed the "works and appropriate" part. Linus usually does not care where a patch is coming from provided that it is of a human-managable size and fixes only the problem you're tracking and don't introduce other things by mistake.
OG.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Note that saying "it's in vger, so you're wasting your time" is still completely and utterly stupid. The fact that it is in vger has absolutely no bearing, especially as there's a _lot_ of stuff in vger that will probably never make it into 2.2.
I severely doubt it as the only differences as of right now are:
1) Networking bug fixes, you'll get to review these.
2) The drivers/video stuff
3) Arch specific drivers and port specific code in their own directories, you take these as is.
Stop spreading misinformation especially when I know you have no desire to go and look for yourself, ask us we'll tell you what is there.
#2 is the only sour grape area at the moment, I've been pressuring Martin to merge this stuff into you as I want it in before I merge the ports in. This is because the latter won't work without the former, every time I merge in sparc stuff everyone asks why it doesn't compile still, I want this one to be clean and to compile.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
On Tue, 29 Sep 1998, Martin Mares wrote: > Some time ago, you promised you'll accept a single large video patch before > 2.2 and I did send it to you, but I got ignored. The whole patch has no effect > on non-experimental i386 configuration, but it's essential to get almost all > other architectures work -- I really don't want to have the same situation > in 2.2 as we did in 2.0 where only i386 and Alpha were compilable from your > tree and all other architectures needed lots of patches. Please tell me what > should I do.
It's even worse: 2.1.123 won't work on my Alpha (UDB/Multia) due to the TGA graphics board.
Greetings,
Geert
-- Geert Uytterhoeven Geert.Uytterhoe...@cs.kuleuven.ac.be Wavelets, Linux/{m68k~Amiga,PPC~CHRP} http://www.cs.kuleuven.ac.be/~geert/ Department of Computer Science -- Katholieke Universiteit Leuven -- Belgium
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
On Tue, Sep 29, 1998 at 12:54:44AM +0200, Kurt Garloff wrote: > And you think it's a good idea to have the linux community divide into to > parts: The Linus party and the VGER party? > One of the problems of free software is to have one version accepted as the > standard one and to have people fix this one and not their highly > customized one. > Don't do that!
OK, I read a few more messages on this subject now and I see you got reasons not to sync with vger. I'd still prefer you to have some agreement with the vger people to have patches going in and you're still able to not let in some features you consider not belonging there. VGER should create a Linus branch ... I really don't wanna see the power of the Linux people split into two parts.
(And maybe you just want that. There are a lot of people enthusiastic about kernel development and sending a lot of patches. Maybe you don't want to discrourage them but of course you can't let everything. So they got a vger kernel to play with ... ? )
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
On Mon, Sep 28, 1998 at 05:35:28PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > And you think it's a good idea to have the linux community divide into to > > parts: The Linus party and the VGER party?
> No. I've tried to tell the vger people that.
> The problem is that some people think that once they are in vger, they're > golden and no longer have to worry. Those kinds of people I don't care > about, I don't want to hear about, and I refuse to discuss with.
> David Miller spent an inordinate amount of time in getting the crap out of > vger. That's good. He then sent me patches to sync up the parts he thought > were fine. That's even better.
> The problem is that there's a ton of patches on vger, and some people do > not understand the issue of "Code Freeze". They think that just because > they had access to the CVS tree, they got under the code freeze somehow. I > won't bother educating them any more.
> I'm still open to bug fixes, but they had better not be "go look at vger, > some of the stuff there is bug-fixes". Anybody who thinks that that kind > of approach works is pretty misguided.
> Linus
I see, it's not your fault.
I still think that you and DaveM and some others should really take care to prevent a split. I think it's worth some effort.
We all know that there are and will be splits. But the problem is that * vger is sort of important, because some really strong people use it (DaveM ...) * We're close to 2.2. It would just be stupid to miss some good bugfixes just because some people were thinking it's OK to merge them into vger.
Seems it's hard for some of the vger people to accept that you are still the Maintainer of the official release.
But please spend some time to have this cleared. And please tell us, what the outcome of this is and whether one should care about vger, if we want to fix things ...
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
On Tue, 29 Sep 1998, Martin Mares wrote: > Some time ago, you promised you'll accept a single large video patch before >2.2 and I did send it to you, but I got ignored. The whole patch has no effect
Could you please provide the patch to the public too (maybe I' ve missed it)? I' d like to be able to read it just because I am courious to see 700kbyte of bugfixes at once ;-).
Andrea[s] Arcangeli
PS. I' ve seen that Geert has published the interesting vger diff but it seems to be not the one supposed to fit in the kernel...
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> On Mon, 28 Sep 1998, Shawn Leas wrote: > > Don't take this the wrong way, but can we expect framebuffer support to > > work from now on? > I don't expect fb to work _now_. No. I expect it to be fixed. I don't > expect it to be fixed by people just pointing at vger and not sending me > reasonable patches.
What would be needed to get SPARC going again? I'd like to run 2.1.xxx kernels on a couple of Suns around here...
Yes, I'm way far from being an expert in this area :/ -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand mailto:vonbr...@inf.utfsm.cl Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
