How not to piss off a kernel subsystem maintainer - part 5
Feb 11, 2011, 14:04 (2 Talkback[s])
(Other stories by Greg Kroah-Hartman)
Re-Imagining Linux Platforms to Meet the Needs of Cloud Service Providers
"Fifth in a long series of complaints... See part 1 and part 2
and part 3 and part4 for previous atrocities.
"Heck, It's not like I haven't said all of this before, but it
sure seems like no one learns from the past, or reads the
documentation that we write for how to actually submit a patch for
the kernel. Linux has one of the best documented procedures for how
to do this, it's not like it's a secret or something...
"Anyway, here's a list of patches that people have sent me in
this week alone that have caused me major problems:
* patch was never even build tested, and of course, it breaks
when you do build it.
* patch does build, but it was never tested because the patch does
the opposite of what the submitter wanted to do.
* patch sent with no authorship
* patch sent with no signed-off-by line"