| |||||||||||||
Yama: not so fastYama: not so fastPosted Aug 5, 2010 5:21 UTC (Thu) by thedevil (subscriber, #32913)Parent article: Yama: not so fast
Here you can see what I believe turns off more potential kernel contributors than the very occasional sexism or other tribal insensitivity.
What would you do in your day job, if after completing your task using approach A1, your boss told you that wouldn't do, use approach A2 instead; then, after some time passed, you completed approach A2, and the same boss suggested approach A1? I know what I would do: start sending out resumes that evening.
Dignity matters. Even to some hackers.
(Log in to post comments)
Yama: not so fast Posted Aug 5, 2010 8:51 UTC (Thu) by sgros (subscriber, #36440) [Link]
Yes, inconsistency hurts. But, on the other hand, it is hard to say which approach is better without trying every one, and we all make mistakes. I.e., A1->A2->A1 makes sense because A2 failed, but A1->A2->A1->A2 doesn't make sense at all.
Of course, it easier to do that with someone's else time, but in the same time it is better for everyone else and, in this case, for kernel.
Now, before someone starts flame war, my comment only presents one view and it's certainly not a general view applicable to all situations.
Yama: not so fast Posted Aug 5, 2010 9:27 UTC (Thu) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]
Right. But what is the alternative? If your boss really did change his mind after you completed A2, then he has two choices: tell you to go back and do it again, or else decide that keeping you happy is more important than his own preferences, and accept it anyway.
Do you really expect a typical LWN hacker to accept what he considers a technically wrong solution because of 'social' reasons, to keep a contributor happy? Perhaps they should; perhaps it would be better for the kernel in the long run; but there's no way it will happen.
Yama: not so fast Posted Aug 5, 2010 12:59 UTC (Thu) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link] This is not exactly what happened, if you read the original e-mails: "push it into a special LSM or rather a non-standard rule for it". I don't pretend I have a clue about the technical issues, but I don't see in this mail that it was explicitly told that "if you put it into an LSM, we'll merge it".On the other hand the line "If you think the objection is about having things in fs/ you're smoking some really bad stuff." is really something that could leave bad taste in developers' mouth. Probably this is why it's meaning was missed/ignored.
|
|||||||||||||