Re: Plain 2.4.5 VM... (and 2.4.5-ac3)

[Vincent Stemen]

On Wednesday 30 May 2001 15:30, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2001, Vincent Stemen wrote:
> > The problem is, that's not true.  These problems are not slipping
> > through because of lack of testers.  As Alan said, the VM problem has
> > been lurking, which means that it was known already.
>
> Fully agreed, it went through because of a lack of hours
> per day and the fact that the priority of developers was
> elsewhere.
>
> For me, for example, the priorities have mostly been with
> bugs that bothered me or that bothered Conectiva's customers.
>
> If you _really_ feel this strongly about the bug, you could
> either try to increase the number of hours a day for all of

I sure wish I could :-).

> us or you could talk to my boss about hiring me as a consultant
> to fix the problem for you on an emergency basis :)
> The other two alternatives would be either waiting until
> somebody gets around to fixing the bug or sending in a patch
> yourself.
>
> Trying to piss off developers has adverse effect on all four
> of the methods above :)
>

Why should my comments piss anybody off?  I am just trying to point
out a problem, as I see it, an offer suggestions for improvement.
Other developers will either agree with me or they wont.
Contributions are not made only through writing code.  I contribute
through code, bug reports, ideas, and suggestions.  I would love to
dive in and try to help fix some of the kernel problems but my hands
are just to full right now.

My comments are not meant to rush anybody and I am not criticizing how
long it is taking.  I know everybody is doing everything they can just
like I am, and they are doing a terrific job.  I am just suggesting a
modification to the way the kernels are distributed that is more like
the early versions that I hoped would allow us to maintain a stable
kernel for distributions and production machines.

- Vincent Stemen