Linux Archive

Linux Archive (http://www.linux-archive.org/)
-   Debian Kernel (http://www.linux-archive.org/debian-kernel/)
-   -   Bug#568317: Processed: cloning 568317, reassign -1 to kernel-package (http://www.linux-archive.org/debian-kernel/327223-bug-568317-processed-cloning-568317-reassign-1-kernel-package.html)

Ben Hutchings 02-16-2010 08:39 PM

Bug#568317: Processed: cloning 568317, reassign -1 to kernel-package
 
On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 08:27 +1100, paul.szabo@sydney.edu.au wrote:
> Dear Ben,
>
> You wrote:
>
> > The OP asked us to report the bug, so I assumed he didn't.
>
> Seems you did not pay attention to
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=568317#86
> written a week before your cloning:
>
> >> Seeing your reluctance to "talk" to kernel-package, I now reported
> >> Bug#568823.

Your bug is just one of many I have looked at in the last week, and I do
not remember every detail of those bugs. Sorry for the mistake.

> Of course none of this matters at all. Kernel-package is now "fixed",
> linux-2.6 will be fixed sometime in the far future and wrongly because
> they speak about repeated patterns not about "reasonable" perl code.

I know the scripts suck but I am not in a position to rewrite them. I
asked you to send patches for linux-2.6, and you refused.

> But it all does not matter because no-one seems to care much about
> Debian stable (currently lenny) ... oh well, will patch myself.

I fixed this in the svn branch for lenny and it should be in the next
stable update.

Ben.

--
Ben Hutchings
Make three consecutive correct guesses and you will be considered an expert.

02-16-2010 09:12 PM

Bug#568317: Processed: cloning 568317, reassign -1 to kernel-package
 
Dear Ben,

> ... Sorry for the mistake.

OK, you are only human and forgiven.

> I know the scripts suck but I am not in a position to rewrite them. ...
> I fixed this in the svn branch ...

You seem to be contradicting yourself.

> I asked you to send patches for linux-2.6, and you refused.

Huh? What do you base that accusation on? Looking in Bug#568317, I see
my fumbling about getting hold of the right scripts (oh silly me, always
thinking that Debian lenny is "current"...) and then
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=568317#71
from your colleague Maximilian Attems:

>>> ... saw your old patch and can do that later tomorrow.
>>> thanks for your input.

which I interpreted as "you" not needing further hand-holding after all.

Please explain how my interpretation was wrong; or please retract.

> I fixed this in the svn branch for lenny and it should be in the next
> stable update.

Thanks. Pity you did not let Bug#568317 (and thus the world) know.

Cheers, Paul

Paul Szabo psz@maths.usyd.edu.au http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/u/psz/
School of Mathematics and Statistics University of Sydney Australia



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 201002162212.o1GMCFdC014343@bari.maths.usyd.edu.au ">http://lists.debian.org/201002162212.o1GMCFdC014343@bari.maths.usyd.edu.au

Ben Hutchings 02-16-2010 09:39 PM

Bug#568317: Processed: cloning 568317, reassign -1 to kernel-package
 
On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 09:12 +1100, paul.szabo@sydney.edu.au wrote:
> Dear Ben,
>
> > ... Sorry for the mistake.
>
> OK, you are only human and forgiven.
>
> > I know the scripts suck but I am not in a position to rewrite them. ...
> > I fixed this in the svn branch ...
>
> You seem to be contradicting yourself.

Not at all. On the 'lenny' branch, I have made a localised fix for the
specific case of do_bootloader. On the development branch ('trunk') I
have removed all uses of the //g modifier that appear to be bogus. I
would like to go much further in cleaning up configuration parsing, but
there is a risk of introducing new bugs and I don't want to do that at
this stage in the release cycle.

> > I asked you to send patches for linux-2.6, and you refused.
>
> Huh? What do you base that accusation on? Looking in Bug#568317, I see
> my fumbling about getting hold of the right scripts (oh silly me, always
> thinking that Debian lenny is "current"...) and then
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=568317#71
> from your colleague Maximilian Attems:
>
> >>> ... saw your old patch and can do that later tomorrow.
> >>> thanks for your input.
>
> which I interpreted as "you" not needing further hand-holding after all.
>
> Please explain how my interpretation was wrong; or please retract.

You declined to send a patch for linux-2.6 after I pointed out that it
is separate from kernel-package. Yes, Maks said he could use your k-p
patch, but it would not have applied cleanly and would have required
fixing up. Given that the kernel team is quite busy, and that you are
clearly capable of debugging Perl and making patches, I don't think it
was unreasonable of me to expect you to help us a bit further.

> > I fixed this in the svn branch for lenny and it should be in the next
> > stable update.
>
> Thanks. Pity you did not let Bug#568317 (and thus the world) know.

Normal practice is simply to tag a bug pending when the fix is
committed, and that has been done (automatically).

Ben.

--
Ben Hutchings
Make three consecutive correct guesses and you will be considered an expert.


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:15 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.