> To beat a dead horse a little deader and make one final attempt to > help, I'll add a few remarks about a diff I committed last night. The > diff had previously been posted to tech. > > On the learning front, the first question to ask might be "Why does > removing proc.h from uvm_map.h cause an error in sysctl.h when > compiling if_iwn.c?" This immediately gets you four more questions, > what are proc.h, uvm_map.h, sysctl.h, and if_iwn.c? > > On the contributing front, I said in my first mail the diff was > incomplete and asked for help, but nobody did. All you had to do to > find a bug was apply the patch and type make on an exotic > architecture. And by exotic architecture, I mean i386 GENERIC. Or > amd64. Actually, any and every kernel config other than i386 MP. So > when people can't/don't/won't type make, it doesn't inspire much > confidence that they will be able to modify the code and then type > make. > > Followup questions for the advanced contributor: Why did vfs_biomem.c > fail to compile except with an MP kernel? What was the obvious fix > for SP? What then broke when Theo tried it? Why did we commit the > gross workaround? What's the right solution? > > In the last month, I mailed 8 patches to tech. They were in areas as > various the kernel to userland to documentation. All of them featured > fairly obvious followups for someone to build upon. Not a single one > earned a response from anyone who's not already a committer.
I concur. In summary, everyone offering help is lying; fact is they are unwilling to get off the couch.
