Re: [PATCH 1/2] i2c-i801: Handle multiple instances instead of keeping global state

[Jean Delvare <khali-PUYAD+kWke1g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org>]

On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 19:12:07 -0400, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-10-31 at 00:00 +0100, Ben Dooks wrote:
> > 
> > > I'd rather stick to (C). Using non-ASCII characters is asking for
> > > trouble, and this doesn't add value.
> > 
> > IIRC, and IANAL, (C) is not sufficient in certain areas (such as the UK)
> > to declare copyright. It needs to be either the word Copyright in full,
> > or the proper 'c' in circle. Both is of coures better. 

"Copyright" is there, so we're all set.

"Copyright (C)" has been used for decades and was never reported to be
insufficient.

> This is the 21st century — we really don't have to stick to ASCII any
> more.

... says the guy who was unable to send a properly formatted patch to me
yesterday. They had no charset info, and "file" says "ISO-8859 mail
text".

Yeah, I know, sent from your phone, blah, whatever, this just confirms
my point that using non-ASCII chars is asking for trouble.

Let me summarize:

* You send patches directly to Linus instead of having them reviewed by
  the people listed in MAINTAINERS.
* You do that on the last day of the merge window, and I've never even
  heard of these patches before.
* Your patches are far from perfect.
* You dare make things even more complex by adding charset issues into
  the mix.

Seriously, if you were not who you are, I'd just give up and ignore
your patches altogether.

-- 
Jean Delvare