Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965317AbWADWqE (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jan 2006 17:46:04 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965316AbWADWqD (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jan 2006 17:46:03 -0500 Received: from a34-mta01.direcpc.com ([66.82.4.90]:44142 "EHLO a34-mta01.direcway.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965315AbWADWqB (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jan 2006 17:46:01 -0500 Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 17:45:39 -0500 From: Ben Collins Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/15] Ubuntu patch sync In-reply-to: <20060104143023.5b2f7967@dxpl.pdx.osdl.net> To: Stephen Hemminger Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-id: <1136414740.4430.44.camel@grayson> Organization: Ubuntu Linux MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.5.3 Content-type: text/plain Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <0ISL003P992UCY@a34-mta01.direcway.com> <20060104140627.1e89c185@dxpl.pdx.osdl.net> <1136412768.4430.28.camel@grayson> <20060104143023.5b2f7967@dxpl.pdx.osdl.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2218 Lines: 55 On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 14:30 -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 17:12:48 -0500 > Ben Collins wrote: > > > On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 14:06 -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > > On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 16:59:02 -0500 > > > Ben Collins wrote: > > > > > > > These patches are just attempts to merge code from the ubuntu kernel tree. > > > > This is most of the differences between our tree and stock code (not > > > > necessarily all differences, since we do have a lot of external drivers > > > > pulled in). > > > > > > Why not submit them too? > > > > Because neither I nor Ubuntu maintains them as upstream. I would rather > > leave it to the upstream authors of those drivers (e.g. rt2400, rt2500, > > unionfs, etc.) to submit their own code to Linus. > > > > Just want to needle the upstream drivers to submit and get reviewed. After dealing with literally dozens of upstream drivers, I think the reasons boil down to a few categories: 1 - They know their code is crappy and they don't want to deal with code review. 2 - They want to retain total control of their code. Having it in the kernel tree means that the driver can be modified by others (in usually correct ways) without their consent. They don't want to have to track these changes and accommodate them. Also, external drivers tend to retain a lot of backward compatibility for older kernel versions, that would surely be dropped if it was placed in the kernel proper. 3 - They don't think their driver is important enough. They have a small user base, and deal directly with those users. 4 - They just don't know how. Not defending any of these reasons. I'd love to not have all this work of pulling in and tracking the drivers that our users need/want, but it's going to be a lot of work. Maybe I'll start emailing them about getting their code in the kernel tree. -- Ben Collins Developer Ubuntu Linux - 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/