message --
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 18:24:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mark Hahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Linux Kernel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Russell King forks ARM Linux.
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> him, but he has cut off all commutations. So
message --
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 18:24:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mark Hahn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Linux Kernel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Russell King forks ARM Linux.
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
him, but he has cut off all commutations. So starting tomorrow, we will be
submitting
> "Erik" == Erik Mouw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Erik> I have taken the role as flame fighter and I have written a
Erik> summary which you can read at:
Erik> http://www-ict.its.tudelft.nl/~erik/flamewar.txt
There is one small problem with the solution advocated at the end of
that page.
On Thu, 28 Sep 2000 10:58:35 -0700, Howell, David P wrote:
> My 2 cents.
>
> I don't read this mail list for this type of rubbish either. The technical
> detail of this thread is all that seems appropriate here, not the issue
> between George and Russell. I'd be embarrassed if I were either of
Howell, David P writes:
> I don't read this mail list for this type of rubbish either. The technical
> detail of this thread is all that seems appropriate here, not the issue
> between George and Russell. I'd be embarrassed if I were either of them,
> the way that they have presented
Kernel
Subject: Re: Russell King forks ARM Linux.
Well, this sucks.
I am not sure how you both came to this impass, but it really is quite
unacceptable. I think there are several problems here:
No maintainer should cut off contribution from an entire
company to a platform it intends
On 28 Sep 2000, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> > "George" == George France <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> George> Eric Mouw from the LART group will be posting the whole thing
> George> in a little while.
> Is there a reason why this obviously personal fight between you and
> Russell needs to be
> "George" == George France <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
George> Eric Mouw from the LART group will be posting the whole thing
George> in a little while.
Is there a reason why this obviously personal fight between you and
Russell needs to be mediated/judged by linux-kernel?
Jes
-
To
"George" == George France [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
George Eric Mouw from the LART group will be posting the whole thing
George in a little while.
Is there a reason why this obviously personal fight between you and
Russell needs to be mediated/judged by linux-kernel?
Jes
-
To unsubscribe from
On 28 Sep 2000, Jes Sorensen wrote:
"George" == George France [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
George Eric Mouw from the LART group will be posting the whole thing
George in a little while.
Is there a reason why this obviously personal fight between you and
Russell needs to be mediated/judged by
Kernel
Subject: Re: Russell King forks ARM Linux.
Well, this sucks.
I am not sure how you both came to this impass, but it really is quite
unacceptable. I think there are several problems here:
No maintainer should cut off contribution from an entire
company to a platform it intends
Howell, David P writes:
I don't read this mail list for this type of rubbish either. The technical
detail of this thread is all that seems appropriate here, not the issue
between George and Russell. I'd be embarrassed if I were either of them,
the way that they have presented themselves,
On Thu, 28 Sep 2000 10:58:35 -0700, Howell, David P wrote:
My 2 cents.
I don't read this mail list for this type of rubbish either. The technical
detail of this thread is all that seems appropriate here, not the issue
between George and Russell. I'd be embarrassed if I were either of
On Thu, 28 Sep 2000, Miles Lane wrote:
> Perhaps the Linux community should draft up some
> guidelines for the job of maintainer that would include
> some mechanism for replacing a maintainer who is not
> effectively shepherding his port.
Since when it is decided by community? It's not a
Well, this sucks.
I am not sure how you both came to this impass, but it really is quite
unacceptable. I think there are several problems here:
No maintainer should cut off contribution from an entire
company to a platform it intends to help support and
implement.
Usually these
Russell King writes:
> George France writes:
[snip]
OK, so the flamewar landed over here. I have taken the role as flame
fighter and I have written a summary which you can read at:
http://www-ict.its.tudelft.nl/~erik/flamewar.txt
We are currently trying to solve this issue privately, so the
> him, but he has cut off all commutations. So starting tomorrow, we will be
> submitting patches directly to the kernel mailing list, since Russell will
uh, this will be unpleasantly familiar to anyone who
was reading the linux-usb mailing list in Dec 99,
when George said, roughly "you are all
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 02:30:13PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> For what it's worth, the SA1100 serial driver has been registered with
> me on the Low-Density Serial Ports major (204) as /dev/ttySA0-2 (minor
> 5-7).
>
> Russ is 100% correct that different drivers shouldn't use the
> same
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 02:30:13PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Russ is 100% correct that different drivers shouldn't use the
> same device numbers, unless they are:
>
> a) mutually exclusive,
> b) interface compatible, *AND*
> c) handle all arbitration necessary.
This doesn't handle the
> heh. It'd go along very well with the current /.post:
> Kernel Fork for Big Iron?
> Posted by Hemos on Wednesday
> September 27, @04:01PM
> from the what-to-do dept.
> (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/09/27/191243=thread)
>
> *sigh*
It amuses me that
Dan Hollis wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Russell King wrote:
> > Alan Cox writes:
> > > So is there a URL with the whole discussion on. It looks like a fun read ?
> > Have a look at the linux-arm-kernel archive at
> > http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/
> > for the
Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
By author:Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> Alan Cox writes:
> > > now. IMHO, today he lost it, declaring that he was going to block all
> > > e-mails from Compaq, which means he can not recieve any more ARM Linux
> > >
Hello Mike;
> Ok. I didn't mean to imply anything.. It just wasn't clear, and
> due to the nature of the discussion, it seemed that it might have
> been a private message..
>
No problem. I should have took more time in writing my e-mail and inserted
the headers.
Best Regards,
--George
-
ype: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Subject: RE: Russell King forks ARM Linux.
>
>Relax. Russel posted this to a public mailing list.
Ok. I didn't mean to imply anything.. It just wasn't clear, and
due to the nature of the discussion, it seemed that it might
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Russell King wrote:
> Alan Cox writes:
> > So is there a URL with the whole discussion on. It looks like a fun read ?
> Have a look at the linux-arm-kernel archive at
> http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/
> for the thread:
> Re: information request
Eric Mouw from the LART group will be posting the whole thing in a little
while.
Patience.
--George
> -Original Message-
> From: Alan Cox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 5:12 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject
Relax. Russel posted this to a public mailing list.
--George
> If that was a personal email from him to you (ie: not public)
> then it was very distasteful and disrespectful of you to post it
> here publically. You should have at least quoted the header
> lines to make it clear...
>
> Just my
Russell;
>
> George France writes:
> > As you probably know Russell King is the maintainer of ARM
> Linux. Him and I
> > have been debating how serial ports should be handled on an
> off for months
> > now. IMHO, today he lost it,
>
> Please note that at every instance, George has totally
>
Alan Cox writes:
> > now. IMHO, today he lost it, declaring that he was going to block all
> > e-mails from Compaq, which means he can not recieve any more ARM Linux
> > patches from us. I have tried every method that I know of, to work with
>
> So is there a URL with the whole discussion on.
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, George France wrote:
>Greetings;
>
>As you probably know Russell King is the maintainer of ARM Linux. Him and I
>have been debating how serial ports should be handled on an off for months
>now. IMHO, today he lost it, declaring that he was going to block all
>e-mails from
> now. IMHO, today he lost it, declaring that he was going to block all
> e-mails from Compaq, which means he can not recieve any more ARM Linux
> patches from us. I have tried every method that I know of, to work with
So is there a URL with the whole discussion on. It looks like a fun read ?
George France writes:
> As you probably know Russell King is the maintainer of ARM Linux. Him and I
> have been debating how serial ports should be handled on an off for months
> now. IMHO, today he lost it,
Please note that at every instance, George has totally ignored my suggestions
and
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, George France wrote:
Greetings;
As you probably know Russell King is the maintainer of ARM Linux. Him and I
have been debating how serial ports should be handled on an off for months
now. IMHO, today he lost it, declaring that he was going to block all
e-mails from Compaq,
now. IMHO, today he lost it, declaring that he was going to block all
e-mails from Compaq, which means he can not recieve any more ARM Linux
patches from us. I have tried every method that I know of, to work with
So is there a URL with the whole discussion on. It looks like a fun read ?
Alan Cox writes:
now. IMHO, today he lost it, declaring that he was going to block all
e-mails from Compaq, which means he can not recieve any more ARM Linux
patches from us. I have tried every method that I know of, to work with
So is there a URL with the whole discussion on. It looks
Russell;
George France writes:
As you probably know Russell King is the maintainer of ARM
Linux. Him and I
have been debating how serial ports should be handled on an
off for months
now. IMHO, today he lost it,
Please note that at every instance, George has totally
ignored my
Eric Mouw from the LART group will be posting the whole thing in a little
while.
Patience.
--George
-Original Message-
From: Alan Cox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 5:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Russell King forks
Relax. Russel posted this to a public mailing list.
--George
If that was a personal email from him to you (ie: not public)
then it was very distasteful and disrespectful of you to post it
here publically. You should have at least quoted the header
lines to make it clear...
Just my $0.02
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Russell King wrote:
Alan Cox writes:
So is there a URL with the whole discussion on. It looks like a fun read ?
Have a look at the linux-arm-kernel archive at
http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/
for the thread:
Re: information request about
ubject: RE: Russell King forks ARM Linux.
Relax. Russel posted this to a public mailing list.
Ok. I didn't mean to imply anything.. It just wasn't clear, and
due to the nature of the discussion, it seemed that it might have
been a private message..
TTYL
--
Mike A. Harris - Linu
Hello Mike;
Ok. I didn't mean to imply anything.. It just wasn't clear, and
due to the nature of the discussion, it seemed that it might have
been a private message..
No problem. I should have took more time in writing my e-mail and inserted
the headers.
Best Regards,
--George
-
To
Followup to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
By author:Russell King [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
Alan Cox writes:
now. IMHO, today he lost it, declaring that he was going to block all
e-mails from Compaq, which means he can not recieve any more ARM Linux
patches from us. I
Dan Hollis wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Russell King wrote:
Alan Cox writes:
So is there a URL with the whole discussion on. It looks like a fun read ?
Have a look at the linux-arm-kernel archive at
http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/
for the thread:
Re:
heh. It'd go along very well with the current /.post:
Kernel Fork for Big Iron?
Posted by Hemos on Wednesday
September 27, @04:01PM
from the what-to-do dept.
(http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/09/27/191243mode=thread)
*sigh*
It amuses me that the
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 02:30:13PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Russ is 100% correct that different drivers shouldn't use the
same device numbers, unless they are:
a) mutually exclusive,
b) interface compatible, *AND*
c) handle all arbitration necessary.
This doesn't handle the watchdog
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 02:30:13PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
For what it's worth, the SA1100 serial driver has been registered with
me on the Low-Density Serial Ports major (204) as /dev/ttySA0-2 (minor
5-7).
Russ is 100% correct that different drivers shouldn't use the
same device
him, but he has cut off all commutations. So starting tomorrow, we will be
submitting patches directly to the kernel mailing list, since Russell will
uh, this will be unpleasantly familiar to anyone who
was reading the linux-usb mailing list in Dec 99,
when George said, roughly "you are all so
Russell King writes:
George France writes:
[snip]
OK, so the flamewar landed over here. I have taken the role as flame
fighter and I have written a summary which you can read at:
http://www-ict.its.tudelft.nl/~erik/flamewar.txt
We are currently trying to solve this issue privately, so the
Well, this sucks.
I am not sure how you both came to this impass, but it really is quite
unacceptable. I think there are several problems here:
No maintainer should cut off contribution from an entire
company to a platform it intends to help support and
implement.
Usually these
On Thu, 28 Sep 2000, Miles Lane wrote:
Perhaps the Linux community should draft up some
guidelines for the job of maintainer that would include
some mechanism for replacing a maintainer who is not
effectively shepherding his port.
Since when it is decided by community? It's not a
50 matches
Mail list logo
