On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 01:05:48AM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-10-08 at 06:55 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 07, 2006 at 09:43:51PM -0700, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2006-10-07 at 23:46 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > >
> > > > Subject : NFSv4 fails to mount (timeout)
> > > > References : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7274
> > > > Submitter : Torsten Kaiser <[email protected]>
> > > > Guilty : Trond Myklebust <[email protected]>
> > > > commit 51b6ded4d9a94a61035deba1d8f51a54e3a3dd86
> > > > Handled-By : Trond Myklebust <[email protected]>
> > > > Patch : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7274
> > > > Status : patch available
> > >
> > > Thanks... Always nice to hear that you have been judged and found
> > > guilty. Now go and reread that fucking bug report...
> >
> > As far as I understand it it is the sum of two bugs, and one of them
> > is the one from commit 51b6ded4d9a94a61035deba1d8f51a54e3a3dd86.
>
> That really comes across in the above message. I read it and immediately
> thought "that must be two bugs".
It contains one kernel bug plus a non-kernel bug.
Many people (including myself) are often "guilty" of introducing a
kernel bug - that's simply normal.
> In any case, what the fuck gives you the right to appoint yourself judge
> and jury over kernel regressions?
I've given this right myself - everyone can always send any bug list he
wants to linux-kernel.
I already did the same during 2.6.15 development.
Besides being a nice way to show people that the "noone tests -rc kernels"
theory is wrong, it also points people at the known regressions and
might result in more of them being fixed.
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Hi Trond,
On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 01:05:48AM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > In any case, what the fuck gives you the right to appoint yourself judge
> > and jury over kernel regressions?
On 10/8/06, Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've given this right myself - everyone can always send any bug list he
> wants to linux-kernel.
I don't see what the problem here is. As stated in the bug report, a
patch signed off by you broke something in the kernel which is not yet
fixed in -git. Aside from calling people "guilty", what Adrian is
doing is a service to us all.
Pekka
On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 10:45:50AM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> Hi Trond,
>
> On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 01:05:48AM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> >> In any case, what the fuck gives you the right to appoint yourself judge
> >> and jury over kernel regressions?
>
> On 10/8/06, Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >I've given this right myself - everyone can always send any bug list he
> >wants to linux-kernel.
>
> I don't see what the problem here is. As stated in the bug report, a
> patch signed off by you broke something in the kernel which is not yet
> fixed in -git. Aside from calling people "guilty", what Adrian is
> doing is a service to us all.
It seems the word "Guilty" was considered offensive by some people?
This wasn't my intention, and I've replaced it with "Caused-By".
> Pekka
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
On Sun, 2006-10-08 19:28:59 +0200, Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 10:45:50AM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 01:05:48AM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > >> In any case, what the fuck gives you the right to appoint yourself judge
> > >> and jury over kernel regressions?
> >
> > On 10/8/06, Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >I've given this right myself - everyone can always send any bug list he
> > >wants to linux-kernel.
> >
> > I don't see what the problem here is. As stated in the bug report, a
> > patch signed off by you broke something in the kernel which is not yet
> > fixed in -git. Aside from calling people "guilty", what Adrian is
> > doing is a service to us all.
>
> It seems the word "Guilty" was considered offensive by some people?
I'd find it offensive, too, when I'd be called "guilty" because a
patch broke something that was buggy. Read the bug report: Seems it
was actually caused by a non-initialized variable introduced by a
patch to util-linux.
> This wasn't my intention, and I've replaced it with "Caused-By".
Made-visible-by :)
MfG, JBG
--
Jan-Benedict Glaw [email protected] +49-172-7608481
Signature of: If it doesn't work, force it.
the second : If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.
On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 07:34:46PM +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-10-08 19:28:59 +0200, Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 10:45:50AM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > > On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 01:05:48AM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > > >> In any case, what the fuck gives you the right to appoint yourself judge
> > > >> and jury over kernel regressions?
> > >
> > > On 10/8/06, Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >I've given this right myself - everyone can always send any bug list he
> > > >wants to linux-kernel.
> > >
> > > I don't see what the problem here is. As stated in the bug report, a
> > > patch signed off by you broke something in the kernel which is not yet
> > > fixed in -git. Aside from calling people "guilty", what Adrian is
> > > doing is a service to us all.
> >
> > It seems the word "Guilty" was considered offensive by some people?
>
> I'd find it offensive, too, when I'd be called "guilty" because a
> patch broke something that was buggy.
Some people have no problem being called
Didn't do anything, the scurvy lad. Ahoy!
while other people consider the word "Guilty" quite offensive.
All I can say is that my list is not meant in any was as an offence -
bugs always happen when writing software, and the intention of my list
is simply to summarize as much information as possible about known
regressions.
> Read the bug report: Seems it
> was actually caused by a non-initialized variable introduced by a
> patch to util-linux.
It was the sum of two independent bugs, and one of them was a kernel bug.
> > This wasn't my intention, and I've replaced it with "Caused-By".
>
> Made-visible-by :)
>
> MfG, JBG
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
On Sun, 2006-10-08 19:59:08 +0200, Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Read the bug report: Seems it
> > was actually caused by a non-initialized variable introduced by a
> > patch to util-linux.
>
> It was the sum of two independent bugs, and one of them was a kernel bug.
Without reading the sources but only the bug report, my impression is
that the kernel code is correct.
MfG, JBG
--
Jan-Benedict Glaw [email protected] +49-172-7608481
Signature of: "really soon now": an unspecified period of time, likly to
the second : be greater than any reasonable definition
of "soon".
On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 08:04:37PM +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-10-08 19:59:08 +0200, Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Read the bug report: Seems it
> > > was actually caused by a non-initialized variable introduced by a
> > > patch to util-linux.
> >
> > It was the sum of two independent bugs, and one of them was a kernel bug.
>
> Without reading the sources but only the bug report, my impression is
> that the kernel code is correct.
It seems you missed Comment #1 when reading the bug report?
> MfG, JBG
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
On Sun, 2006-10-08 20:15:46 +0200, Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 08:04:37PM +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> > On Sun, 2006-10-08 19:59:08 +0200, Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > Read the bug report: Seems it
> > > > was actually caused by a non-initialized variable introduced by a
> > > > patch to util-linux.
> > >
> > > It was the sum of two independent bugs, and one of them was a kernel bug.
> >
> > Without reading the sources but only the bug report, my impression is
> > that the kernel code is correct.
>
> It seems you missed Comment #1 when reading the bug report?
Indeed. I'm sorry.
MfG, JBG
--
Jan-Benedict Glaw [email protected] +49-172-7608481
Signature of: Lauf nicht vor Deinem Glück davon:
the second : Es könnte hinter Dir stehen!