KMS etc.

Posted Dec 15, 2009 21:30 UTC (Tue) by corbet (editor, #1)
In reply to: KMS etc. by jspaleta
Parent article: The abrupt merging of Nouveau

It seems you wanted a different focus to the article than I did. The article wasn't about why Nouveau hadn't been upstreamed until now; some of that was covered with the kernel summit discussion, and it lacks relevance now. The article is why Nouveau was upstreamed now, and what the remaining issues are. That's why the bulk of the article concentrates on Linus's tantrum and ctxprogs.

Now, it could have been about the technical history of Nouveau, though LWN has covered that before. It could also have been about the legitimacy of Fedora shipping a driver that it had no intention of merging, but that didn't seem interesting. I wanted to talk about this week's events and the future.

If I have badly misrepresented things, I apologize.

to post comments

KMS etc.

Posted Dec 15, 2009 22:01 UTC (Tue) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link] (1 responses)

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

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.

KMS etc.

Posted Dec 15, 2009 22:13 UTC (Tue) by rahvin (guest, #16953) [Link]

I thought the summary was more appropriate than trying to re-convey an entire conversation that anyone could find on LKML. Can't satisfy everyone though.