Re: [linux-dvb] DST/BT878 module customization (.. was: Critical points about ...)

Markus Rechberger
2007-05-03T22:06:53Z

On 5/3/07, Manu Abraham <abraham.manu@gmail.com> wrote:
> Markus Rechberger wrote:
> > On 5/3/07, Manu Abraham <abraham.manu@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> >> > Enough. Let's stop arguing non technical issues.
> >> >
> >> > If either one of you have any technical argue against the Trent's
> >> > patches, please point where the fix is wrong. Otherwise, if you wish,
> >> > you may send an acked-by agreeing with the fix.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Why don't you stop this childish behaviour ?
> >>
> >> After explaining to you the reasons in the previous mail:
> >> being the author and maintainer of dst/dst_ca and maintainer of
> >> dvb-bt8xx, i NACK this change
> >>
> >> (1) You aren't DVB maintainer
> >
> > I've seen that too often already, now we could point to a mail someone
> > sent to Uwe regarding maintainership.
>
>
> FYI, I have never written to Uwe regarding any sort of maintainership.
> You seem to be quite up with an overdose of drugs
>

I mean the mail from Helge Hafting (thread [linux-dvb] Critical
points about kernel 2.6.21 and pseudo-authorities) at the very first
beginning.

> From 2005/09/13 - 2007/05/03 (till date) there have been 15 mails from
> my side to Uwe, none of which has a topic whatsoever you say. Only the
> first mail was a private mail and that is CC'd to Johannes as well.
>
> Firstly you seem to play politics by getting Uwe to flame me, then when
> it backfired, you are trying to play tricks with the rest of the
> community as well, by spreading nonsense statements.
>

I sent several comments to Uwe to stop flaming, Trent was in the CC
sometimes I never wrote that he should flame on anyone.
I can simply forward you all mails I sent to Uwe there's not one bad mail.

My point is moreover to get that issue sorted out by either accepting
his "proposal" or stating out why not to add it (and there must be a
reason behind it, and no mail which is 2 years old, or explaining what
the device is, again it got explained what's required from you)

seems like your response is based on that misunderstood sentence,
sorry for not beeing clear enough.

Markus