User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

KMS etc.

KMS etc.

Posted Dec 15, 2009 22:01 UTC (Tue) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
In reply to: KMS etc. by corbet
Parent article: The abrupt merging of Nouveau

You made it a point to talk about prior excuses... you didn't have to put those sentences in or link to Linus's post where he goes over the excuses that he's heard in the past. All of that is historical context that you decided to include. I want to make sure that the contextual view isn't overly one-sided since you decided to include it.

You could have just focused on the posts in the thread that talked to the current legal problems concerning signing off on the binary blob as part of a merge. Both of the Dave Arlie references I gave above include some discussion about the sign-off issue which you could have selectively quoted from. There's something significantly important there I think in the premise that Red Hat legal review has a higher bar to meet on sign-off into the upstream kernel than what is required to include in Fedora.

And if you wanted to be overly sensational there's the short lived Alan/Linus sidebar discussion concerning what the agreed on rules concerning sign-off and merge actually are such as the following:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/925580
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/925880

-jef


(Log in to post comments)

KMS etc.

Posted Dec 15, 2009 23:00 UTC (Tue) by jwboyer (guest, #23296) [Link]

I think the article was fine. Most of the points you brought up were covered last week on LWN already. A rehash of an article that rehashes lkml would be rather silly.


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds