Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:02:26 +0100
From: Olivier Galibert <galibert@pobox.com>
To: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 10/13] Solaris nfsacl workaround
Message-ID: <20050215230226.GA53551@dspnet.fr.eu.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Olivier Galibert <galibert@pobox.com>,
	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20050122203326.402087000@blunzn.suse.de> <20050122203619.889966000@blunzn.suse.de> <1108488547.10073.39.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <20050215203553.GA34621@dspnet.fr.eu.org> <1108507404.10073.228.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1108507404.10073.228.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1047
Lines: 23

On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 05:43:24PM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> ty den 15.02.2005 Klokka 21:35 (+0100) skreiv Olivier Galibert:
> > That's the second time I see you refusing an interoperability patch
> > without bothering to say what would be acceptable.  Do we need a fork
> > between knfsd-pure and knfsd-actually-works-in-the-real-world or what?
> 
> You appear to be under the misguided impression that if a patch is
> reviewed, and rejected, then somehow the responsibility for resolving
> your problem (and cleaning up the code) falls to the reviewer.
> 
> I'm not aware of any such rule.

Resolving the problem and/or cleaning the code, no.  Telling what kind
of patch would be acceptable is your responsability, yes.  That's
where the difference is between a reviewer and a naysayer.

  OG.

-
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/