Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 23:33:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 23:33:03 -0400 Received: from chac.inf.utfsm.cl ([200.1.19.54]:58884 "EHLO chac.inf.utfsm.cl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 23:32:50 -0400 Message-Id: <200104220331.f3M3VDEv023810@sleipnir.valparaiso.cl> To: "Eric S. Raymond" , Alan Cox , CML2 , kbuild-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: Request for comment -- a better attribution system In-Reply-To: Message from "Eric S. Raymond" of "Sat, 21 Apr 2001 19:47:06 -0400." <20010421194706.A14896@thyrsus.com> Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 23:31:13 -0400 From: Horst von Brand Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org "Eric S. Raymond" said: > Alan Cox : > > It scales perfectly. > I must say, in the most respectful way possible, "bullshit!" > Alan, if MAINTAINERS scaled perfectly I wouldn't have had to spend three months > just trying to figure out who was reponsible for each of the [Cc]onfig.in > files. And even with that amount of effort mostly failing. What makes you think your scheme will fare any differently? [...] > I'm an unusually stubborn and persistent person, as you have cause to > know. I really wonder how much good work we've lost because people less > stubborn than me simply gave up on the friction costs of trying to identify > the responsible person(s) for the bits they wanted to change. They post on LKM as last resort. -- Horst von Brand vonbrand@sleipnir.valparaiso.cl Casilla 9G, Vin~a del Mar, Chile +56 32 672616 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/