On Sun, Sep 14, 2003 at 11:12:01PM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote:
> 
> Okay, smartass- why don't *you* do the work then?

1) I am not a NetBSD developer and as such am in no position to
   appropriately request certain changes be pulled up.
2) It's your driver. According to the comments in the source, you're
   actively maintaining it. So to put it simply, it isn't my job.

I just made the change in the sources I have checked out. Once I'd isolated the
line that needed to be changed, I'd say it took me roughly 10 seconds to open
isp_pci.c, find the appropriate line, and change 'Ultra' to 'Fast'.

For all the other differences between 1.80 and 1.89, I suppose I'll wait
until there is a difference important enough for you to find it worth the
time of getting involved in the pullup process.

> 
> On Sun, 14 Sep 2003, Sean Davis wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, Sep 14, 2003 at 02:12:35PM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote:
> > >
> > > This is a stupid and trivial printout change and in no way affects the
> > > actual behaviour. The pullup process is so expensive in NetBSD that I
> > > was waiting until changes that are more substantial came along to do
> > > that.
> > >
> >
> > Well heaven forbid I waste your precious time on such a trivial matter as
> > asking that the kernel print *CORRECT* information! I'm sure you could have
> > started the "Pullup process" in the time it took to write me this mail, and
> > if not, then I no longer wonder why it takes months for any code fixes and
> > such to make it to the 1.6 branch, unless they're security related. Hmm,
> > those pullups usually seem to happen pretty damn quickly. I guess the
> > security pullup process is less "expensive"?
> >
> > --
> > /~\ The ASCII
> > \ / Ribbon Campaign                   Sean Davis
> >  X  Against HTML                       aka dive
> > / \ Email!
> >
> 

-- 
/~\ The ASCII
\ / Ribbon Campaign                   Sean Davis
 X  Against HTML                       aka dive
/ \ Email!