2.3.51 tulip broken

Jeff Garzik jgarzik@mandrakesoft.mandrakesoft.com
Fri Mar 17 04:04:34 2000

(re-copied to linux-kernel)

On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, Bryan Stillwell wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, Jim Morris wrote:
> > using a specific structure, that should be his perogative.  And I feel
> > that he ought to be able to send something like a complete copy of
> > tulip.c, rather than small incremental patches, if he wants too.  In
> > this case, it is Linus who insists on small, incremental patch
> > submission - and that isn't how Donald is setup to work.
> But doing one big update instead of incremental updates puts a damper on
> how much other people can help out.

Doing one big update instead of incremental updates creates MANY
problems.  See my other messages :)

> Donald does great work IMO, but I would really like it if somehow the
> current kernel driver and his driver were joined again and be developed
> jointly.  Maybe setting up cvs on Sourceforge would be the answer?

I would LOVE to see this happen.

Donald, I, and others all seem to agree that having his drivers and
the kernel drivers diverge is a poor situation.  However, while Donald
continues closed source development with periodic code drops, and does
not work with other kernel developers when creating infrastructure, I do
not see a resolution to the situation any time soon.


To unsubscribe send a message body containing "unsubscribe"
to linux-tulip-request@beowulf.org