4 ms·
It switched to your opinion when you said ironically and didn’t list the real reason the upstream patches were rejected.
by pseg134 3y ago
It switched to your opinion when you said ironically and didn’t list the real reason the upstream patches were rejected.
- rlpb 3y agoI'm just going by the article I cited. I don't know any more than the reason given there. And come on: how is refusing contributions when the cited reason is not contributing not ironic?
- esrauch 3y agoMinor thing, if you look at the citation it says that they don't want to hand over official control of official branches to Canonical because they don't trust them to engage with the community, with those citations OP must have meant "accept contributions" as "accept canonical being in control of older official kernel branches to decide what patches are accept (even though no one else will)" rather than they are not accepting patches from canonical.
- bitcharmer 3y agoGiven Canonical's outright user-hostile decisions in recent past I don't blame kernel devs for not trusting them at all.
- mardifoufs 3y agoSuch as? And they still accept redhat contributions so your point is moot anyways.
- bitcharmer 3y agoSnap
- StimDeck 3y ago[dead]
- goku12 3y agoThe LXD - Incus saga with the linuxcontainers community is a very good indicator of how Canonical would behave in a similar situation.
- fnordpiglet 3y agoWhat sort of user hostile actions would one take on a 5 year old kernel version?