> I think your taking this a little too far. Things don't just magically
> appear in the kernel. The author needs to submit it in a suitable fashion
> for inclusion.
I don't think I was implicitly relying upon magic to get it into the kernel.
Let's look at what `suitable fashion' might mean, in this context:
1) We know it can't be a .bz file, because
http://kernelnotes.org/lnxlists/linux-kernel/lk_9908_05/msg00250.html
2) We know that it can't be picked from a CVS archive, or packaged as a
release from an archive, because
http://kt.linuxcare.com/kt19990819_31.html#9
3) We know that it can't be sent any time in the next two weeks, because
http://kernelnotes.org/lnxlists/linux-kernel/lk_9909_02/msg00460.html
I just don't see much there to do with the stability, cleanliness and solidity
criteria Alan mentioned a couple of posts back. In fact, these reasons have
nothing to do with why people use Linux, and an N-year delay in a minor patch
is a pretty clear sign that something's awry.
I'm reminded of when Andrew Tanenbaum discouraged Bruce Evans and me from
working on a multi-threaded file system for Minix because it'd reduce the
pedagogic value of Minix.
We know what happened then.
> So the answer might be as simple as "The author never tried
> to get it included", have you even asked the author about this and does
> s/he even _want_ it in the kernel?
Yes, I asked. Yes, the author has posted patches. He's probably too polite.
Colin.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/