3 ms·

http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-intel/commit/?id=0c697aee9b3767be7d1e04e4e4f9d304f23b188a http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-

http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-intel/commit/?id=0c697aee9b3767be7d1e04e4e4f9d304f23b188a http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-intel/com... Note "Ordered-by:" line, clearly intended to communicate Chris Wilson was ordered to do this, rather than doing it of his own accord.

asveikau 13y ago
You still see no attempt at humor or lightheartedness in this? May I remind you that his email ends in .co.uk, so many people may need to apply a "British humour filter". Most of his commits have "Signed-off-by:" with a name; he replaced "signed-off" with "ordered" and the name with a vague reference to "The Management". The further context I was thinking of was this: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-intel/commit/?id=58a7611ccfda88c7cbcc62b25b787d6b0fa64081 http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-intel/com...
- nknighthb 13y ago
  I'm obviously aware of both commits, and of much, much further context beyond the commits. No, I see no humor or lightheartedness. Signed-off-by is not just something Chris made up, it's a pseudo-standardized line for git commit messages. Further context I'm aware of is that Chris explicitly accepted and applied the patch after working with the developers to get it right, along with other signs of cooperation. Yet more context I'm aware of is much of the political bullshit surrounding Mir, Wayland, Canonical, Red Hat, Intel and really the entire FOSS community at this point. This isn't a joke. This is Intel's management intervening.
  - asveikau 13y ago
    > I'm obviously aware of both commits, and of much, much further context beyond the commits. Maybe you should share that first, rather than leaving it implicit. (If your comment tells the whole story I am unconvinced. OK, so the guy merged a patch, then it turns out he did not in fact have the blessing of his employer, so he reverted it with a slightly snarky commit message. Any more context I should be aware of beyond that? It does not sound like a huge conspiracy to me.) Edit: also, what does "The Management" mean? This guy's immediate supervisor? Intel CEO? I feel like some people are taking an oddly paranoid reading of the situation. I don't know anything about Intel specifically but I have worked at a large company, I am willing to bet that the higher you get in Intel's management the less they care about Ubuntu.
    - nknighthb 13y ago
      No, I'm not about to spend days or weeks trying to impart knowledge of the history, values, and practices of the entire FOSS community on you. You're free to continue acting smug about things you don't understand and building strawmen left and right (I note this is at least the second time in the last week you've done this), but you should stop expecting others to do the heavy lifting for you.
      - asveikau 13y ago
        You made it sound like you had inside knowledge of Intel's decision making process that is relevant here. If that's the case I think you should disclose it instead of getting mad at me or assuming it is universal knowledge. Our thread from last week is totally unrelated to any of this. I would rather not engage in discussion that is based on personal animosity. Let's stay on topic.
        nknighthb 13y ago
        No, I didn't make it sound like that. You are, once again, inventing a strawman, and drawing wild conclusions based on insufficient knowledge. Last week's thread is not unrelated. It shows the same pattern of inane, bad-faith behavior.
        asveikau 13y ago
        So saying that publicly signing something "The Management" while working in a company the size of Intel is comically vague, and saying people should lighten up a bit without additional info and perspective, that is acting in bad faith? I am not trying to offend anyone with this commentary, it is my own opinion.
        nknighthb 13y ago
        > So saying that publicly signing something "The Management" while working in a company the size of Intel is comically vague You didn't say that. > saying people should lighten up You didn't say that, either. Which is good, because "lighten up" is not, has never been, and will never be a reasonable thing to say to anyone, anytime, anywhere. Your original comment wasn't unreasonable. Where you started going off the rails was initially with "May I remind you", which is patronizing. Then "Maybe you should share that first, rather than leaving it implicit.", chiding me for failing to magically know that you lacked knowledge that is relatively common within the set of people who care about the subject at hand. Then you characterized my statements as describing a "huge conspiracy". Being unaware of any "huge conspiracy", only a lot of wide-open politics, this is, to me, at once puzzling and insulting. "oddly paranoid" makes it even worse. Then you accuse me of pretending to have inside knowledge of Intel, when I did no such thing, and did not intend to, and say I should "disclose" this thing I don't have, as if I'm trying to hide something. And now you seek to rewrite history.

asveikau 13y ago

You still see no attempt at humor or lightheartedness in this? May I remind you that his email ends in .co.uk, so many people may need to apply a "British humour filter". Most of his commits have "Signed-off-by:" with a name; he replaced "signed-off" with "ordered" and the name with a vague reference to "The Management". The further context I was thinking of was this: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-intel/commit/?id=58a7611ccfda88c7cbcc62b25b787d6b0fa64081 http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-intel/com...

nknighthb 13y ago
I'm obviously aware of both commits, and of much, much further context beyond the commits. No, I see no humor or lightheartedness. Signed-off-by is not just something Chris made up, it's a pseudo-standardized line for git commit messages. Further context I'm aware of is that Chris explicitly accepted and applied the patch after working with the developers to get it right, along with other signs of cooperation. Yet more context I'm aware of is much of the political bullshit surrounding Mir, Wayland, Canonical, Red Hat, Intel and really the entire FOSS community at this point. This isn't a joke. This is Intel's management intervening.
- asveikau 13y ago
  > I'm obviously aware of both commits, and of much, much further context beyond the commits. Maybe you should share that first, rather than leaving it implicit. (If your comment tells the whole story I am unconvinced. OK, so the guy merged a patch, then it turns out he did not in fact have the blessing of his employer, so he reverted it with a slightly snarky commit message. Any more context I should be aware of beyond that? It does not sound like a huge conspiracy to me.) Edit: also, what does "The Management" mean? This guy's immediate supervisor? Intel CEO? I feel like some people are taking an oddly paranoid reading of the situation. I don't know anything about Intel specifically but I have worked at a large company, I am willing to bet that the higher you get in Intel's management the less they care about Ubuntu.
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    No, I'm not about to spend days or weeks trying to impart knowledge of the history, values, and practices of the entire FOSS community on you. You're free to continue acting smug about things you don't understand and building strawmen left and right (I note this is at least the second time in the last week you've done this), but you should stop expecting others to do the heavy lifting for you.
    - asveikau 13y ago
      You made it sound like you had inside knowledge of Intel's decision making process that is relevant here. If that's the case I think you should disclose it instead of getting mad at me or assuming it is universal knowledge. Our thread from last week is totally unrelated to any of this. I would rather not engage in discussion that is based on personal animosity. Let's stay on topic.
      - nknighthb 13y ago
        No, I didn't make it sound like that. You are, once again, inventing a strawman, and drawing wild conclusions based on insufficient knowledge. Last week's thread is not unrelated. It shows the same pattern of inane, bad-faith behavior.
        asveikau 13y ago
        So saying that publicly signing something "The Management" while working in a company the size of Intel is comically vague, and saying people should lighten up a bit without additional info and perspective, that is acting in bad faith? I am not trying to offend anyone with this commentary, it is my own opinion.
        nknighthb 13y ago
        > So saying that publicly signing something "The Management" while working in a company the size of Intel is comically vague You didn't say that. > saying people should lighten up You didn't say that, either. Which is good, because "lighten up" is not, has never been, and will never be a reasonable thing to say to anyone, anytime, anywhere. Your original comment wasn't unreasonable. Where you started going off the rails was initially with "May I remind you", which is patronizing. Then "Maybe you should share that first, rather than leaving it implicit.", chiding me for failing to magically know that you lacked knowledge that is relatively common within the set of people who care about the subject at hand. Then you characterized my statements as describing a "huge conspiracy". Being unaware of any "huge conspiracy", only a lot of wide-open politics, this is, to me, at once puzzling and insulting. "oddly paranoid" makes it even worse. Then you accuse me of pretending to have inside knowledge of Intel, when I did no such thing, and did not intend to, and say I should "disclose" this thing I don't have, as if I'm trying to hide something. And now you seek to rewrite history.