5 ms·

I don't see how it's political to let Canonical keep the burden of maintaining code that only they care about...

by damien 13y ago

azakai 13y ago
Is that what is happening here? Intel's explanation of "The Management" handing down orders doesn't imply technical reasons were the motivation. It's unclear. If there are technical reasons - like the one you mentioned - let's hear them, they might be valid.
- asveikau 13y ago
  Does anyone else see the "-The Management" comment as having more than a tinge of sarcasm? I think people are taking it a little too seriously.
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    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.
- damien 13y ago
  I don't think I mentioned any technical reason? Allocating developer time is generally a management decision. If anything, Intel has already put their resources into Wayland and the lack of any good technical reasons for Mir's existence probably played a large role in their decision. I don't see why this is so shocking really, many other projects in the Linux graphics stack have already said that they won't be supporting Mir upstream any time soon. At this point, I'd be more surprised of hearing a project supporting Mir than the other way around.
krschultz 13y ago
Canonical wrote the initial patches. It stands to reason they will also be fairly heavily involved in maintaining them. That's a fairly thin argument against incorporating patches upstream. Almost by definition, most of the patches I've committed to upstream are things that I was the first person to care enough about to write a patch. It's nice to see other people use them, but the idea that "why should upstream carry your patch when you are the only one that cares about it" is a bit counter to what has made FOSS get this far. Especially when "only they care about it" still represents one of the largest blocks of users.
- mayhew 13y ago
  I'm sure upstream would be more willing to work with Mir if there was technical reasons for its existence. As it stands, Mir provides no benefit to anyone but Canonical, who simply want control. That control comes at the cost of fragmenting a fragile part of the ecosystem. You can't expect the rest of the community to be okay with that.

I don't see how it's political to let Canonical keep the burden of maintaining code that only they care about...

by damien 13y ago

I don't see how it's political to let Canonical keep the burden of maintaining code that only they care about...

Is that what is happening here? Intel's explanation of "The Management" handing down orders doesn't imply technical reasons were the motivation. It's unclear. If there are technical reasons - like the one you mentioned - let's hear them, they might be valid.

asveikau 13y ago
Does anyone else see the "-The Management" comment as having more than a tinge of sarcasm? I think people are taking it a little too seriously.
- nknighthb 13y ago
  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.
damien 13y ago
I don't think I mentioned any technical reason? Allocating developer time is generally a management decision. If anything, Intel has already put their resources into Wayland and the lack of any good technical reasons for Mir's existence probably played a large role in their decision. I don't see why this is so shocking really, many other projects in the Linux graphics stack have already said that they won't be supporting Mir upstream any time soon. At this point, I'd be more surprised of hearing a project supporting Mir than the other way around.

krschultz 13y ago

Canonical wrote the initial patches. It stands to reason they will also be fairly heavily involved in maintaining them. That's a fairly thin argument against incorporating patches upstream. Almost by definition, most of the patches I've committed to upstream are things that I was the first person to care enough about to write a patch. It's nice to see other people use them, but the idea that "why should upstream carry your patch when you are the only one that cares about it" is a bit counter to what has made FOSS get this far. Especially when "only they care about it" still represents one of the largest blocks of users.

mayhew 13y ago
I'm sure upstream would be more willing to work with Mir if there was technical reasons for its existence. As it stands, Mir provides no benefit to anyone but Canonical, who simply want control. That control comes at the cost of fragmenting a fragile part of the ecosystem. You can't expect the rest of the community to be okay with that.