Re: [git pull] drm request 3
From: Stephane Marchesin
Date: Thu Mar 04 2010 - 18:14:36 EST
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 15:03, Linus Torvalds
> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Adam Jackson wrote:
>> On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 11:14 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> > On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> > > If you'd made it clear that you wanted the interface to be stable
>> > > before it got merged, I suspect that it simply wouldn't have been merged
>> > > until the interface was stable.
>> > What kind of excuse is that? It's "we did bad things, but if we didn't do
>> > those bad things, we'd have done _other_ bad things"?
>> > Two wrong choices don't make a right.
>> So unmerge it.
> That's what I told people I can do (I'd just revert that commit).
> I can do that. But it's not very productive, is it? What about the people
> who _do_ want to run the rawhide tree?
> Seriously - what's wrong with my suggestion to just version things
> properly? What's wrong with _fixing_ a stupid technical problem? What's
> wrong with people that you can't see that there are actual _solutions_ to
> the f*cking mess that is the current situation?
> I can solve it for my own use, and I already stated so. But while kernel
> developers should be scratching their own itches, a kernel developer that
> can't see past his own small sandbox is pretty damn worthless. We do need
> to fix this - and I'm bringing it up and complaining about it, because the
> nouveau people have _not_ done anything remotely sane.
Again, if we thought the DRM interfaces were good to begin with, we'd
have submitted the driver for inclusion. But that's not the case so
the we didn't submit the DRM. Whoever did gets to cope with the
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/