cvs commit: src/sys/conf files kern.pre.mk src/sys/dev/em
LICENSE e1000_80003es2lan.c e1000_80003es2lan.h e1000_82540.c
e1000_82541.c e1000_82541.h e1000_82542.c e1000_82543.c
e1000_82543.h e1000_82571.c e1000_82571.h e1000_82575.c ...
jfvogel at gmail.com
Sat Oct 6 12:59:26 PDT 2007
On 10/6/07, Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des at des.no> wrote:
> Scott Long <scottl at samsco.org> writes:
> > Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des at des.no> writes:
> > > We used to have a principle that commit bits were granted to individuals
> > > on their individual merit, not simply because they represented a vendor
> > > and were paid to work on drivers for that vendor's hardware.
> > Are you implying that Jack has no merit? That's an unfortunate
> > assertion. What evidence do you have to support that?
> It is you who implied rather strongly that Jack is neither more nor less
> than an Intel representative. You spoke of "lecturing a vendor" when
> all Erik did was point out or own rules to a *committer*.
> > > We also used to have a principle that changes should be tested
> > > before being committed, especially to -STABLE.
> > I guess you missed that part where Jack said that the changes had
> > undergone extensive testing.
> I guess you missed the part where his commit broke the tinderbox,
> because he clearly did not test the DEVICE_POLLING case.
No one is perfect, and YUP, we don't test POLLING, so here I am
on my weekend fixing it, I don't get paid for that, and I also don't
get paid for all the advocation I do for this community to Intel
More information about the cvs-all