7 ms·
That's easy to say now. At the time, UMC had not "debriefed" the kernel maintainers they lied to in the "hypocrite commits". And then Pakki didn't mention tha
by gnud 5y ago
That's easy to say now.
At the time, UMC had not "debriefed" the kernel maintainers they lied to in the "hypocrite commits".
And then Pakki didn't mention that these new patches were generated by a tool, and submitted a bunch of "nonsense" patches with no explanation.
What reason did GKH have to trust anyone associated with the "hypocrite commits" at that point?
(ps. don't think you deserve all the downvotes here...)
- Foxboron 5y agoI said the same thing then. The pre-print was public at that point and I had been following it since December, sharing thesis adviser doesn't make you associated with research conducted months prior. Yes, they are bad patches and the research is also questionable. But this is not bad faith nor malicious.