Previously Heinz J. Mauelshagen wrote:
> Linux LVM is a Sistina GPL project and there's no danger at all
> that we want to change its GPL nature!
I think the general sentiment is that LVM is a Linux project,
currently being managed by Sistina.
Also, since you have merged patches from other you
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 04:09:32PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> AJ Lewis wrote:
> > Ok, the issue here is that we're trying to get a release out and so anything
> > that majorly changes the code is getting shunted aside for the moment. It
> > would be stupid to just add everything that comes in
Luca Berra wrote:
> we have some serous problems here.
[...]
> a better lvm (still buggy according to many kernel hackers, but better still),
> which does not get into the kernel for communication reasons. (Alan can you help?
> there is a lot of stuff that goes in -ac before going to mainstream)
Fuck! I hate these things early in the morning.
what gets me extremely pissed in the whole business is that i don't
believe that splitting the mailing list is the solution to LVM problems.
Escpecially since we have a number of lusers of lwm at the time being.
I believe sistina is mostly at
Fuck! I hate these things early in the morning.
what gets me extremely pissed in the whole business is that i don't
believe that splitting the mailing list is the solution to LVM problems.
Escpecially since we have a number of lusers of lwm at the time being.
I believe sistina is mostly at
Luca Berra wrote:
we have some serous problems here.
[...]
a better lvm (still buggy according to many kernel hackers, but better still),
which does not get into the kernel for communication reasons. (Alan can you help?
there is a lot of stuff that goes in -ac before going to mainstream)
I
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 04:09:32PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
AJ Lewis wrote:
Ok, the issue here is that we're trying to get a release out and so anything
that majorly changes the code is getting shunted aside for the moment. It
would be stupid to just add everything that comes in on the
Previously Heinz J. Mauelshagen wrote:
Linux LVM is a Sistina GPL project and there's no danger at all
that we want to change its GPL nature!
I think the general sentiment is that LVM is a Linux project,
currently being managed by Sistina.
Also, since you have merged patches from other you
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> went in, but not other stuff. Also, it doesn't appear that any of the
> LVM changes are making it into the stock kernel, which is basically a
> recepie for disaster.
agreed... after the problematic inclusion of 0.9 into the kernel i
asked on sistina
AJ writes:
> Ok, the issue here is that we're trying to get a release out and so anything
> that majorly changes the code is getting shunted aside for the moment.
Actually, the whole idea of "trying to get a release out" is part of the
problem. If patches were included into CVS and sent sent to
Alan Cox wrote:
>>As far as getting patches into the stock kernel, we've been sending patches
>>to Linus for over a month now, and none of them have made it in. Maybe
>>someone has some pointers on how we get our code past his filters.
>>
>
> Has it occured to you that some of this might be
Hi AJ,
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 02:40:15PM -0500, AJ Lewis wrote:
> The list is now open. I've talked to our admin and he's opening it up.
> Send me e-mail if it doesn't work, 'cause something else is broken.
to me it looks like your reactions are too late.
I suggest you Sistina people accept
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 04:09:32PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> AJ Lewis wrote:
> > Ok, the issue here is that we're trying to get a release out and so anything
> > that majorly changes the code is getting shunted aside for the moment. It
> > would be stupid to just add everything that comes in
AJ Lewis wrote:
> Ok, the issue here is that we're trying to get a release out and so anything
> that majorly changes the code is getting shunted aside for the moment. It
> would be stupid to just add everything that comes in on the ML without
> review. Linus does the exact same thing. I've
> As far as getting patches into the stock kernel, we've been sending patches
> to Linus for over a month now, and none of them have made it in. Maybe
> someone has some pointers on how we get our code past his filters.
Has it occured to you that some of this might be because the code does
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 01:45:20PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> I don't think that the subscription is necessarily the only issue. I'm
> subscribed to all of the LVM mailing lists, and still a lot of what I
> submit (legitimate bug fixes, and not just features/code cleanup) does
> not get
On Thu, Apr 19 2001, AJ Lewis wrote:
> As far as getting patches into the stock kernel, we've been sending patches
> to Linus for over a month now, and none of them have made it in. Maybe
> someone has some pointers on how we get our code past his filters.
The diff between 2.4.4-pre LVM and
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> I don't think that the subscription is necessarily the only
> issue. I'm subscribed to all of the LVM mailing lists, and
> still a lot of what I submit (legitimate bug fixes, and not just
> features/code cleanup) does not get added to CVS. Yes, the
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 01:45:20PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> I don't think that the subscription is necessarily the only issue. I'm
> subscribed to all of the LVM mailing lists, and still a lot of what I
> submit (legitimate bug fixes, and not just features/code cleanup) does
> not get
> Not to be negative, but isn't Alan the pot calling the kettle black? You
> use ORBS to block email as well, with no hope of reprieve. AFAIK, the
I dont stop other people discussing the kernel. Its very very different.
> linux-lvm list has a moderator which _should_ forward legitimate emails
> All it would have taken was a request and a good reason for doing so, but
> I guess this is one way to do it. Just don't complain about spam. :)
I think you'll find several folks who run linux-kernel and other lists like
the linux.nl mailhub more than happy to help there
Alan
-
To
AJ Lewis writes:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 08:02:50PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Well their approach to patches that fix bugs is to reject emails. They've
> > done that to stuff I've reported any many others. So there is a problem.
> > And it's kind of hard to discuss a problem when you are being
The list is now open. I've talked to our admin and he's opening it up.
Send me e-mail if it doesn't work, 'cause something else is broken.
All it would have taken was a request and a good reason for doing so, but
I guess this is one way to do it. Just don't complain about spam. :)
Regards,
The list is now open. I've talked to our admin and he's opening it up.
Send me e-mail if it doesn't work, 'cause something else is broken.
All it would have taken was a request and a good reason for doing so, but
I guess this is one way to do it. Just don't complain about spam. :)
Regards,
AJ Lewis writes:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 08:02:50PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
Well their approach to patches that fix bugs is to reject emails. They've
done that to stuff I've reported any many others. So there is a problem.
And it's kind of hard to discuss a problem when you are being
All it would have taken was a request and a good reason for doing so, but
I guess this is one way to do it. Just don't complain about spam. :)
I think you'll find several folks who run linux-kernel and other lists like
the linux.nl mailhub more than happy to help there
Alan
-
To
Not to be negative, but isn't Alan the pot calling the kettle black? You
use ORBS to block email as well, with no hope of reprieve. AFAIK, the
I dont stop other people discussing the kernel. Its very very different.
linux-lvm list has a moderator which _should_ forward legitimate emails
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 01:45:20PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
I don't think that the subscription is necessarily the only issue. I'm
subscribed to all of the LVM mailing lists, and still a lot of what I
submit (legitimate bug fixes, and not just features/code cleanup) does
not get added to
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Andreas Dilger wrote:
I don't think that the subscription is necessarily the only
issue. I'm subscribed to all of the LVM mailing lists, and
still a lot of what I submit (legitimate bug fixes, and not just
features/code cleanup) does not get added to CVS. Yes, the
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 01:45:20PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
I don't think that the subscription is necessarily the only issue. I'm
subscribed to all of the LVM mailing lists, and still a lot of what I
submit (legitimate bug fixes, and not just features/code cleanup) does
not get added to
On Thu, Apr 19 2001, AJ Lewis wrote:
As far as getting patches into the stock kernel, we've been sending patches
to Linus for over a month now, and none of them have made it in. Maybe
someone has some pointers on how we get our code past his filters.
The diff between 2.4.4-pre LVM and your
As far as getting patches into the stock kernel, we've been sending patches
to Linus for over a month now, and none of them have made it in. Maybe
someone has some pointers on how we get our code past his filters.
Has it occured to you that some of this might be because the code does stuff
AJ Lewis wrote:
Ok, the issue here is that we're trying to get a release out and so anything
that majorly changes the code is getting shunted aside for the moment. It
would be stupid to just add everything that comes in on the ML without
review. Linus does the exact same thing. I've said
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 04:09:32PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
AJ Lewis wrote:
Ok, the issue here is that we're trying to get a release out and so anything
that majorly changes the code is getting shunted aside for the moment. It
would be stupid to just add everything that comes in on the
Hi AJ,
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 02:40:15PM -0500, AJ Lewis wrote:
The list is now open. I've talked to our admin and he's opening it up.
Send me e-mail if it doesn't work, 'cause something else is broken.
to me it looks like your reactions are too late.
I suggest you Sistina people accept
Alan Cox wrote:
As far as getting patches into the stock kernel, we've been sending patches
to Linus for over a month now, and none of them have made it in. Maybe
someone has some pointers on how we get our code past his filters.
Has it occured to you that some of this might be because the
AJ writes:
Ok, the issue here is that we're trying to get a release out and so anything
that majorly changes the code is getting shunted aside for the moment.
Actually, the whole idea of "trying to get a release out" is part of the
problem. If patches were included into CVS and sent sent to
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Andreas Dilger wrote:
went in, but not other stuff. Also, it doesn't appear that any of the
LVM changes are making it into the stock kernel, which is basically a
recepie for disaster.
agreed... after the problematic inclusion of 0.9 into the kernel i
asked on sistina
38 matches
Mail list logo
