2.3.51 tulip broken
Sat Mar 18 13:38:28 2000
> As has been pointed out many times, change management in the stable
> series is incredibly important. You simply cannot blanketly update a
> popular driver like tulip, you must incrementally update it, so that
> changes can be evaluated carefully. Donald is not perfect, and his
> newer drivers do not work at all for some people.
Whatever about the religous nature of the preceding flurry of emails,
I have to disagree with you here...
Are you saying that a driver update which contains 4 changes, has to
go through as 4 seperate patches, with a delay between each of them
so "that changes can be evaluated carefully" ? That has to be both daft and
a waste of time...
> > Tulip development is such a huge issue that it has it's own list and discussion of
> > the drivers is encouraged there. Same goes for cards like the eepro. There has
> > been a -lot- of public discussion regarding a -lot- of the changes.
> Sure discussion occurs. I don't see frequent updates appearing on
> Donald's web site, nor do I see discussion of Donald's net driver core
> changes on any mailing list [except when I flame him of course].
Donald has been making the Tulip chipsets dance for a very long time,
I don't think that anyone can raise issue with his committment to the
Just because you don't like the way in which he does it - does not
give you any right to 'flame' him... I'm more than happy to let
Donald get on working on the code in whatever timescale he can..
I don't worry that he's forgotten about it, but I understand that
he has more to do in his life than work / tulip development...
If you disagree with his approach, then take on the responsibility
yourself... take the grief / crap that everyone contributing to the
open source cause gets (the sort of stuff that you are throwing)
I can understand the frustration that you feel, but if you take a longer
view of things, you'll see the frustration that a lot of us who have
been involved in the 'internet' since the early days see...
This whole industry is going crazy (many will say that it's already there)
and companies that make no money are getting huge amounts of funding .
They are all out there trying to create something new and different that
will make them millionaires (or beyond)... at the back end you have the
real engine-room where the work gets done. If you spend a couple of years
working there you realise that you *have* to take it nice and steady..
One of the issues with Linux, is that it's huge popularity has brought
with it a whole load of glory hunters, who will be here in kernel space
today , and gone tomorrow off chasing some new 'world saviour'... unless
we apply a calm steading hand to the helm we run the risk of driving the
Linux ship onto the rocks...
Can I suggest that you 'fund' Donald's time, and then you can sort out
how often releases are made, and how incremental they are..
Alternatively - come up with your own revision of the driver... and
deal with the realworld issues of keeping it in sync - yourself..
> If changes are not regularly pushed out to the Linus tree, then you miss
> important bug reports. The people on linux-tulip, and the people who
> use the driver's on Donald's web site, are SELF-SELECTED, and represent
> the minority of all Tulip users. This is not adequate enough testing to
> ensure that a massive update will be bug-free for the users at large.
But - they are the people who are doing 'wierd' things with the tulip
code, and stick very close to the latest revision of the code... to
they get to 'alpha' test it before it goes mainstream...
> Donald lets changes build and build into one massive update, a "take it
> or leave it" update. If Alan accepts the update, then you take the good
> with the bad. Donald's massive updates have been BUGGY for some, great
> for others. Since his updates are KNOWN TO BE BUGGY for some cases, the
> choice has been to not update the kernel driver, or update it piecemeal
> with feedback from individual hackers and testers.
> Jeff Garzik | My to-do list is a function
> Building 1024 | which approaches infinity.
> MandrakeSoft, Inc. |
> To unsubscribe send a message body containing "unsubscribe"
> to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe send a message body containing "unsubscribe"