Re: A modest proposal -- We need a patch penguin

[Jeff Garzik <garzik@havoc.gtf.org>]

On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 08:00:19PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Tuesday 29 January 2002 06:13 pm, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On 30 Jan 2002, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > Does that answer your questions?
> > > Would you look at a patch again?
> >
> > That answers the specific questions about Al and Stephen.
> >
> > It does NOT address whether consensus has been reached in general, and
> > whether people are happy. Is that the case?
> 
> Wouldn't it be nice if somebody could collect this sort of information for 
> you?

So, you think "somebody" is willing to track all kernel issues and patches?

I don't think that's possible for any person or automated system.  [it's possible with a
combination of -people- and -automation-, IMHO, though]


> > Also, obviously nobody actually took over maintainership of the patch,
> > because equally obviously nobody has been pinging me about it.
> 
> I.E. patches get dropped, even when there's intense interest about them, due 
> to sheer frustration burning out the patch's maintainer, and scaring away 
> other potential maintainers.  (Is this NOT the case?  I could be wrong.  
> Please point out the flaw in my logic...)

I would point out a flaw if I actually saw any logic...

Are you talking about the EA patch?  See Nathan's response and other responses in this
thread.


> > For some
> > reason you seem to want _me_ to go out of my way to search for patches
> > that are over a month old that I don't know whether they are valid or not,
> > used or not, or even agreed upon or not.
> 
> I thought I was actually proposing somebody else be formally tasked with the 
> job of doing that...

You clearly do not realize the enormity of the task.


> > But yes, it's so much easier to blame me.
> 
> Maybe just to suggest that you could use a secretary?

I suggest that you need a Valium.

	Jeff