From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Lord Subject: Re: 2.6.25-rc8: FTP transfer errors Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 09:19:17 -0400 Message-ID: <47FF6555.50004@rtr.ca> References: <47FEADCB.7070104@rtr.ca> <20080410.172453.44434205.davem@davemloft.net> <47FEB062.3020003@rtr.ca> <20080410.173911.179180620.davem@davemloft.net> <47FEBDAA.7010305@rtr.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: David Miller , jesper.juhl@gmail.com, tilman@imap.cc, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, Jeff Garzik , rjw@sisk.pl, LKML , Netdev To: =?UTF-8?B?SWxwbyBKw6RydmluZW4=?= Return-path: Received: from rtr.ca ([76.10.145.34]:1031 "EHLO mail.rtr.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751768AbYDKNTW (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Apr 2008 09:19:22 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Ilpo J=C3=A4rvinen wrote: > On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, Mark Lord wrote: >=20 >> David Miller wrote: >>> From: Mark Lord >>> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:27:14 -0400 >>> >>>> It's *your* bug -- you signed off on the commit. >>> I sign off on basically every networking commit, does that mean I h= ave >>> to fix every networking bug and every networking bug is "mine"? >> .. >> >> Absolutely, though to a varying degree. That's the responsibility >> that goes with the role of a subsystem maintainer. I once had >> such a role, and gave it up when I felt I could no longer keep up. =20 >> You still keep refering to it as "your (my) bug". >> It's not. I had nothing to do with it, other than stumbling over it= =2E >=20 > This bug is perfect example where bisect clearly was useful :-). Nobo= dy=20 > knew whose bug it actually was until your bisect gave directions. >=20 >> When people stumble over a libata bug, I look hard to see if my code >> could possibly cause it. Jeff looks even harder, because he's the >> current subsystem dude for libata. >> >> I never suggest a user search through a mountain of unrelated commit= s >> for something I've screwed up on. >=20 > But it is ok for you to ask an innocent net developer to do that (eve= n=20 > with your terms as I hadn't signed off _anything_ related to that one= ), > hmm? >=20 > ...You had this pretty demanding tone earlier: >=20 >> Or I can ignore it, like the net developers, since I have a workarou= nd. >> And then we'll see what other apps are broken upon 2.6.25 final rele= ase. =2E. That's not demanding, that's quite relaxed. I had a good workaround, and didn't really care any more at that point. Just though it was rath= er odd that none of the developers seemed interested in tracking it down. I offered tons of help, gave it, and said I didn't have time for a full bisect at that juncture. =46or that, I get repeatedly slammed by the netdev folks. Even after I put aside *paid* work to submit to your demands. Next time around, I won't bother reporting bugs to you folks, that's for damned sure. Cheers