From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Subject: Re: 2.6.31-rc1 with ide-tape / STT2000A Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 23:42:12 +0200 Message-ID: <200908102342.15252.bzolnier@gmail.com> References: <200908102148.05751.bzolnier@gmail.com> <20090810222013.4b0abe96@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-bw0-f219.google.com ([209.85.218.219]:44490 "EHLO mail-bw0-f219.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753778AbZHJVnQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:43:16 -0400 Received: by bwz19 with SMTP id 19so2843737bwz.37 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2009 14:43:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20090810222013.4b0abe96@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Cox Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org On Monday 10 August 2009 23:20:13 Alan Cox wrote: > > That style of discussion is not the kind of professional attitude > > that we would like to encourage here. > > "We". Would that be the royal we or have you suddenly become 'voice of > the community' ? > > > The rest of your mail is also not worth discussing with as it is made > > of completely made up stuff Seems like the "inconvenient" part of my sentence became M.I.A... Hmmm... > Your professional attitude astounds me. If that is the professionalism > you wish to encourage take it elsewhere.. > > I fixed ide-scsi for 2.4 long ago. Back then it worked. Since then the > people responsible for IDE let it rot. Possibly, I don't know exactly what happened in 2.4, I took over in 2.5.7x. However simply referring to "IDE people breaking things" in this era implies 2.6.x happenings not some 2.4.x or 2.5.x pre-history so please just don't do it as it causes inconvenient misunderstandings..