RE: Why is the new patch against 2.4.20-pre3 and not 2.4.1 9?

RE: Why is the new patch against 2.4.20-pre3 and not 2.4.1 9?

[Grover, Andrew]

> From: VALETTE Eric [mailto:valette-9L3uxOwa2HHHNWWW6QW1Ag@public.gmane.org] 
> I've tried to apply it on 2.4.19, it fails. I've tried on 
> 2.4.20-pre4 it 
> also fails :-(. So I have to stick with 2.4.20-pre3 which is known to 
> cause some hangup on boot (see Marcello comment for pre4).

OK there's a patch against pre4 on sf.net now.

> Can we have some light of why 20-pre3 instead of 19? Or is it just 
> cahotic because of the temperature and beverage?

Because that's what I originally merged against, and I didn't want to
remerge against .19.

-- Andy


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by: OSDN - Tired of that same old
cell phone?  Get a new here for FREE!
https://www.inphonic.com/r.asp?r=sourceforge1&refcode1=vs3390

Re: Why is the new patch against 2.4.20-pre3 and not 2.4.1 9?

[KOCHI, Takayoshi]

On Tue, 20 Aug 2002 10:42:42 -0700
"Grover, Andrew" <andrew.grover-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> > From: VALETTE Eric [mailto:valette-9L3uxOwa2HHHNWWW6QW1Ag@public.gmane.org] 
> > I've tried to apply it on 2.4.19, it fails. I've tried on 
> > 2.4.20-pre4 it 
> > also fails :-(. So I have to stick with 2.4.20-pre3 which is known to 
> > cause some hangup on boot (see Marcello comment for pre4).
> 
> OK there's a patch against pre4 on sf.net now.

Andy, It seems that the patch on sf.net for 2.4.20-pre4 is almost
same as 20020726 release, few files are changed.
It seems to me that you merged wrong tree into your 2.4.20-pre4
and genereted the patch.

Thanks,
-- 
KOCHI, Takayoshi <t-kouchi-f7IHDacdhdx8UrSeD/g0lQ@public.gmane.org/t-kouchi>



-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by: OSDN - Tired of that same old
cell phone?  Get a new here for FREE!
https://www.inphonic.com/r.asp?r=sourceforge1&refcode1=vs3390

Re: Why is the new patch against 2.4.20-pre3 and not 2.4.1 9?

[VALETTE Eric]

Grover, Andrew wrote:
>>From: VALETTE Eric [mailto:valette-9L3uxOwa2HHHNWWW6QW1Ag@public.gmane.org] 
>>I've tried to apply it on 2.4.19, it fails. I've tried on 
>>2.4.20-pre4 it 
>>also fails :-(. So I have to stick with 2.4.20-pre3 which is known to 
>>cause some hangup on boot (see Marcello comment for pre4).



>>Can we have some light of why 20-pre3 instead of 19? Or is it just 
>>cahotic because of the temperature and beverage?
> 
> 
> Because that's what I originally merged against, and I didn't want to
> remerge against .19.

That is rather not a sound answer. Why did you choose to merge with 
2.4.10-pre3 instead of 2.4.19? I apply other patches to kernel that may 
well conflict with other pre series and I'm not alone. Most of *normal* 
people make patches only for official stable kernels (e.g ntfs, kdbg, 
packet writing for UDF). Again I think this is just a lack of methodlogy 
  (like non usage of acessible bug tracking system...).




-- 
    __
   /  `                          Eric Valette - Canon CRF
  /--   __  o _.                 Product Dev. Group Software Team Leader
(___, / (_(_(__                 Rue de la touche lambert
                                 35517 Cesson-Sevigne  Cedex
                                 FRANCE
Tel: +33 (0)2 99 87 68 91       Fax: +33 (0)2 99 84 11 30
E-mail: valette-9L3uxOwa2HHHNWWW6QW1Ag@public.gmane.org    http://www.crf.canon.fr



-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by: OSDN - Tired of that same old
cell phone?  Get a new here for FREE!
https://www.inphonic.com/r.asp?r=sourceforge1&refcode1=vs3390

Re: Why is the new patch against 2.4.20-pre3 and not 2.4.1 9?

[Charl P. Botha]

On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 09:37:25AM +0200, VALETTE Eric wrote:
> Grover, Andrew wrote:
> >Because that's what I originally merged against, and I didn't want to
> >remerge against .19.
> 
> That is rather not a sound answer. Why did you choose to merge with 
> 2.4.10-pre3 instead of 2.4.19? I apply other patches to kernel that may 
> well conflict with other pre series and I'm not alone. Most of *normal* 
> people make patches only for official stable kernels (e.g ntfs, kdbg, 
> packet writing for UDF). Again I think this is just a lack of methodlogy 
>  (like non usage of acessible bug tracking system...).

He applied against 2.4.20-pre3, deal with it.  You could:
1. Run 2.4.18 OR
2. Port the patch to 2.4.19 yourself if you are such a expert on
   "methodology" OR
3. Install Windows XP.

One of these three options is meant as a joke.

Best regards,
Charl

-- 
charl p. botha http://cpbotha.net/ http://visualisation.tudelft.nl/


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by: OSDN - Tired of that same old
cell phone?  Get a new here for FREE!
https://www.inphonic.com/r.asp?r=sourceforge1&refcode1=vs3390

Re: Why is the new patch against 2.4.20-pre3 and not 2.4.1 9?

[Arndt Schoenewald]

Hi Eric!

On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 09:37:25AM +0200, VALETTE Eric wrote:
> Grover, Andrew wrote:
> >>From: VALETTE Eric [mailto:valette-9L3uxOwa2HHHNWWW6QW1Ag@public.gmane.org] 
> >>I've tried to apply it on 2.4.19, it fails. I've tried on 
> >>2.4.20-pre4 it also fails :-(. So I have to stick with 2.4.20-pre3
> >>which is known to cause some hangup on boot (see Marcello comment
> >>for pre4).
> >>
> >>Can we have some light of why 20-pre3 instead of 19? Or is it just 
> >>cahotic because of the temperature and beverage?
> >
> >Because that's what I originally merged against, and I didn't want to
> >remerge against .19.
> 
> That is rather not a sound answer. Why did you choose to merge with 
> 2.4.10-pre3 instead of 2.4.19? I apply other patches to kernel that may 
> well conflict with other pre series and I'm not alone. Most of *normal* 
> people make patches only for official stable kernels (e.g ntfs, kdbg, 
> packet writing for UDF). Again I think this is just a lack of methodlogy 
>  (like non usage of acessible bug tracking system...).

It seems that Andrew's merge with 2.4.10-pre3 instead of 2.4.19 was an
accident rather than a deliberate decision. When he announced the new
ACPI source release on on Fri, 16 Aug 2002, he wrote:

    [snip]
    Second, the Linux 2.5 patch is up on sf.net/projects/acpi, and
    includes the changes listed below. Unfortunately, due to a BK error
    on my part (I merged the ACPI patch onto the tip of the 2.4 BK tree,
    instead of 2.4.19) the 2.4 patch is going to have to wait until
    Marcelo releases 2.4.20-pre3.
    [snip]

So please don't get upset too much; mistakes like this can happen.

Best regards,
Arndt


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by: OSDN - Tired of that same old
cell phone?  Get a new here for FREE!
https://www.inphonic.com/r.asp?r=sourceforge1&refcode1=vs3390

Re: Why is the new patch against 2.4.20-pre3 and not 2.4.1 9?

[VALETTE Eric]

Arndt Schoenewald wrote:

> It seems that Andrew's merge with 2.4.10-pre3 instead of 2.4.19 was an
> accident rather than a deliberate decision. When he announced the new
> ACPI source release on on Fri, 16 Aug 2002, he wrote:
> 
>     [snip]
>     Second, the Linux 2.5 patch is up on sf.net/projects/acpi, and
>     includes the changes listed below. Unfortunately, due to a BK error
>     on my part (I merged the ACPI patch onto the tip of the 2.4 BK tree,
>     instead of 2.4.19) the 2.4 patch is going to have to wait until
>     Marcelo releases 2.4.20-pre3.
>     [snip]
> 
> So please don't get upset too much; mistakes like this can happen.

So why did he release a second patch for pre4 after that then and not 
2.4.19??? Will he be releasing new patch for each preX?

I understand using BK tree for things that will be included and 
avoid/simplify merging for official maintainer. As far as I understand 
Marcello is not going to integrate ACPI in 2.4.20...


-- 
    __
   /  `                          Eric Valette - Canon CRF
  /--   __  o _.                 Product Dev. Group Software Team Leader
(___, / (_(_(__                 Rue de la touche lambert
                                 35517 Cesson-Sevigne  Cedex
                                 FRANCE
Tel: +33 (0)2 99 87 68 91       Fax: +33 (0)2 99 84 11 30
E-mail: valette-9L3uxOwa2HHHNWWW6QW1Ag@public.gmane.org    http://www.crf.canon.fr



-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by: OSDN - Tired of that same old
cell phone?  Get a new here for FREE!
https://www.inphonic.com/r.asp?r=sourceforge1&refcode1=vs3390

Re: Why is the new patch against 2.4.20-pre3 and not 2.4.1 9?

[Arndt Schoenewald]

On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 12:58:17PM +0200, VALETTE Eric wrote:
> Arndt Schoenewald wrote:
> 
> >It seems that Andrew's merge with 2.4.10-pre3 instead of 2.4.19 was an
> >accident rather than a deliberate decision. When he announced the new
> >ACPI source release on on Fri, 16 Aug 2002, he wrote:
> >
> >    [snip]
> >    Second, the Linux 2.5 patch is up on sf.net/projects/acpi, and
> >    includes the changes listed below. Unfortunately, due to a BK error
> >    on my part (I merged the ACPI patch onto the tip of the 2.4 BK tree,
> >    instead of 2.4.19) the 2.4 patch is going to have to wait until
> >    Marcelo releases 2.4.20-pre3.
> >    [snip]
> >
> >So please don't get upset too much; mistakes like this can happen.
> 
> So why did he release a second patch for pre4 after that then and not 
> 2.4.19??? Will he be releasing new patch for each preX?

Someone on this list asked him to release a 2.4.20-pre4 patch because of
known problems with 2.4.20-pre3. This was an exceptional case; I don't
think he is going to release more of these -preX patches. The reason for
not releasing a 2.4.19 patch seems to be that the backport for 2.4.19
would take time that he does not want to invest. You or everybody else
on this list is welcome to step in and do this work for the benefit of
all of us.

> I understand using BK tree for things that will be included and 
> avoid/simplify merging for official maintainer. As far as I understand 
> Marcello is not going to integrate ACPI in 2.4.20...

Don't know about that. My hope was that it will go into 2.4.20.

Arndt


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by: OSDN - Tired of that same old
cell phone?  Get a new here for FREE!
https://www.inphonic.com/r.asp?r=sourceforge1&refcode1=vs3390

RE: Why is the new patch against 2.4.20-pre3 and not 2.4.1 9?

[Grover, Andrew]

> From: KOCHI, Takayoshi [mailto:t-kouchi-dPjYVeZdYcz+G+EEi5ephHgSJqDPrsil@public.gmane.org] 
> > OK there's a patch against pre4 on sf.net now.
> 
> Andy, It seems that the patch on sf.net for 2.4.20-pre4 is almost
> same as 20020726 release, few files are changed.
> It seems to me that you merged wrong tree into your 2.4.20-pre4
> and genereted the patch.

Arrgh, you're right.

I've been changing my patch process around in order to lessen the time I
spend making patches, but right now it seems to be having the opposite
effect.

Regards -- Andy


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by: OSDN - Tired of that same old
cell phone?  Get a new here for FREE!
https://www.inphonic.com/r.asp?r=sourceforge1&refcode1=vs3390

RE: Why is the new patch against 2.4.20-pre3 and not 2.4.1 9?

[Grover, Andrew]

> From: Arndt Schoenewald [mailto:abs-SA7OhAOe25xnNxvc45mVi0K323yFvGpRdefyYXQ/eNw@public.gmane.org] 

> Someone on this list asked him to release a 2.4.20-pre4 patch 
> because of
> known problems with 2.4.20-pre3. This was an exceptional case; I don't
> think he is going to release more of these -preX patches. The 
> reason for
> not releasing a 2.4.19 patch seems to be that the backport for 2.4.19
> would take time that he does not want to invest. You or everybody else
> on this list is welcome to step in and do this work for the benefit of
> all of us.

BTW if a 2.4.19 patch was trivial I would have, but it wasn't, so I didn't
bother.

Patches are not an end; they are a means to an end. So, if I seem reticent
to merge ACPI into an obsolete kernel version it's because every minute I do
that is one less minute I can spend fixing the code.

If you are not one of the people on the list who is submitting patches, then
it is in your best interest to maximize the amount of time other people can
work on code, including me. This includes not just submitting bug reports
but DIAGNOSING the problem, if you can. This also includes *reducing* the
administrative work for coders. This may include 1) not asking for unneeded
administrative overhead or 2) volunteering to *do* the administrative stuff
if you think it's that important.

Regards -- Andy


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by: OSDN - Tired of that same old
cell phone?  Get a new here for FREE!
https://www.inphonic.com/r.asp?r=sourceforge1&refcode1=vs3390