Re: Suggestion for XFree86

> trivial changes and resubmit.  The patch is applied, and is now part of
> the 2.5.x kernel tree.  I was a little disappointed that it was credited
> to the maintainer of the module in the change list the Linus sent out,
> but as I said, they have their procedures.

Thats a problem with bitkeeper unfortunately. It says who dumped the
patch in bitkeeper not who actually did the work.

> Alan).  I didn't get any reponse from the "mainstream" 2.4 maintainer,
> and I have no idea if the driver will make it into that kernel.  I

Ah, I did actually talk to Marcelo briefly about it as a "test in -ac"

> trees.  If I'd been aware of your quote from Linus above, I'd have also
> expected this driver to be included in even the 2.5.x kernel tree on
> the basis that "a broken driver is better than starting from scratch."

The 2.5 stuff is one of those big things where the frame buffer stuff
has been reworked a lot. But it actually isnt important - the perception
is what matters as you demonstrate nicely.

Its also why its best (IMHO) when code appears for otherwise unmaintained
drivers it gets checked in - thats how you create maintainers ;)

[Jeff Garzik's 1st rule of open source 'he who touched it last is clearly
the maintainer']

Alan