[linux-dvb] Re: Patch 3 / 3 for bt8xx cards

Michael Krufky mkrufky at linuxtv.org
Wed Apr 12 19:33:33 CEST 2006

christophpfister at bluemail.ch wrote:
>>> I will not apologize for this, because it is the truth what I am saying.
>> Amen :)
> We (members and developers) aren't an anarchic society. We're democratic
> (at least I hope so - I'm not a maintainer...). So please follow rules to
> preserve a good develop environment.
> If a patch isn't accepted by a maintainer, he has to give reasons for his
> decision. If you don't agree with his decision, you can just call for a vote among maintainers and nothing more.

Thank you for your effort in trying to provide some order to this flame.

As far as for providing reasons for patch rejection -- Yes, it would be 
nice, but it can't _always_ happen.  You must remember that the people 
maintaining this subsystem are doing it in their spare time.  It is far 
more useful for the maintainers to spend their time writing code and 
applying good patches instead of explaining what is wrong with the bad 
patches to people that refuse to listen to reason.  <-- Now, don't quote 
me out of context here.  I do agree that every rejection deserves an 
explanation, within reason.  But you cannot expect anybody to respond to 
a repetitious flamer, who continually re-posts the same patch after 
being told over and over that it will not be applied.

In this particular circumstance, the patch author is behaving in a 
hostile manner.  Previous patches from this guy were rejected, and 
explanations were provided.  Instead of accepting this, the author 
starts an email flame, pointing fingers at anyone imaginable.  Surely 
with my comments in this thread, I am due to be the next victim.

With that said, it should be noted that the author of this patch is 
attempting to remove the names of copyright holders from the 
documentation.  His patch removes everybody's name from the bottom of 
the document, replacing with his own name.  Nobody has the right to do 
this, especially not without approval from the names in question.  Once 
a copyright is added, it cannot be removed, and the same hold true for 
documentation, unless agreed upon by the original copyright holder.

In addition to the above, I really don't see any benefit to making this 
change, nor do I think this requires any further debate.  The case is 
simple enough -- this same patch has been proposed repeatedly, it has 
been rejected repeatedly, and the author continues to press the issue.

If there are parts of the documentation that really need to be changed, 
it would be a *much* better game plan to make small changes in separate 
patches.  Only then can the individual changes be dealt with separately, 
and perhaps someone could be convinced to apply some parts.

For patch guidelines, please see:


...and also please see README.patches from within the v4l-dvb mercurial 

Given that the author knows how everybody feels about it, I see nothing 
wrong if he feels the need to re-post his patch for each new kernel 
version.  This is an open community, and it causes no harm to post a 
patch that will never be included.  However, at this point, it is well 
known that the patch will not be accepted, and it has gone far beyond 
the point where an explanation should be required.  The flames are 
highly inappropriate, and I ask that everyone stop wasting their time on 
this issue.


Michael Krufky

More information about the linux-dvb mailing list