On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 03:24:40AM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 14, 2003 at 07:58:50PM -0400, Sean Davis wrote:
> > 
> > Well heaven forbid I waste your precious time on such a trivial matter as
> > asking that the kernel print *CORRECT* information! I'm sure you could have
> > started the "Pullup process" in the time it took to write me this mail, and
> > if not, then I no longer wonder why it takes months for any code fixes and
> > such to make it to the 1.6 branch, unless they're security related. Hmm,
> > those pullups usually seem to happen pretty damn quickly. I guess the
> > security pullup process is less "expensive"?
> 
> Good job, Sean -- with any luck, if you keep abusing the people who do
> the work, there won't be any of them left.  You might just manage to
> bludgeon  Matt into not maintaining the isp driver any more; who will make
> these trivial printf changes then?

Stop me if I'm wrong, but who started calling what "stupid and expensive?"
And if the changes are so trivial, why are they such a big issue? Why is
mjacob@ the only one who can make "trivial printf changes"?

> Of course security-related changes are pulled up faster.  It would be
> irresponsible for us to do anything else.  And, frankly, of course the
> change you so dearly want pulled up was treated with a rather low priority;
> of the panoply of bugs to be fixed and that have been fixed, a driver that
> works fine but misidentifies one kind of hardware it supports is a very,
> very, very minor item.

So, when a security change is requested for pullup, does the person who
thinks its a good idea to pull that change up get flamed too? I don't
understand why I'm getting yelled at for responding in kind to him. He did
afterall do his best to call me an idiot with his response to my first mail,
as if I didn't know that NetBSD developers already have plenty of work to
do.

I didn't say right now. I didn't say tomorrow. All I was hoping for was
that it would get considered _sometime soon_. And the response I got was,
more or less, "you're an idiot for even wasting my time by mailing about
such a change." I don't understand why he couldn't have just said "Sorry,
that's low priority, it has to wait" instead of responding the way he did.
Thus I see no reason why my response to him should be called "abusive" yet his
two responses to me shouldn't.

-Sean

-- 
/~\ The ASCII
\ / Ribbon Campaign                   Sean Davis
 X  Against HTML                       aka dive
/ \ Email!