Conflict over a code
Conflict over a code
Posted Mar 22, 2015 5:42 UTC (Sun) by marcH (subscriber, #57642)In reply to: Conflict over a code by nevets
Parent article: Conflict over a code
... then some maintainers strangely keep wasting their time reading such patches and writing nasty replies to their author, instead of just inserting his name in their kill file. Too much care doing more harm than good.
Thanks for not just your violent agreement, but also - and even better - a similar demonstration here again.
> But your comment is totally off the mark, and shows that you have no idea about kernel maintainership.
My comment has nothing specific to the kernel; it applies anywhere. Violent agreement number 2.
Posted Mar 22, 2015 13:30 UTC (Sun)
by nevets (subscriber, #11875)
[Link] (1 responses)
When someone submits a patch to code you maintain, it is your obligation to send a reply. Reviewing patches is part of the maintainers job. Ideally, you review the patch and the author listens to you and corrects the mistakes. But when you "waste" time reviewing a patch and the author ignores your comments that tends to piss the maintainer off. I'm not saying it is right to reply nasty, but it still requires a reply. And the "kill file" is actually the biggest insult you can do to a patch submitter.
> My comment has nothing specific to the kernel
Then why bother commenting on this thread at all? The topic is about the "Code of Conflict" that was added for kernel development. I'm specifically talking about that document and why it was added and why kernel maintainers are grumpy and post nasty replies. What are you talking about?
> it applies anywhere. Violent agreement number 2.
I would agree if we were talking about social media and news article comments, as those are all about opinions and not technical discussions like kernel development is. But this is not about social media, it's about discussing technical issues in a polite manner that people on both sides fix the problems at hand.
I think we are in violent agreement that you do not understand kernel maintainership.
Posted Mar 23, 2015 6:05 UTC (Mon)
by marcH (subscriber, #57642)
[Link]
Up to a point (the point of nastiness)
> And the "kill file" is actually the biggest insult you can do to a patch submitter.
It's not nice but it's certainly not an "insult".
Anyway the "kill file" was just a image to try to get the original point across: in various projects all over the world, public and private, over-busy maintainers and tech leads have to manage their time and prioritize high value contributions over hand-holding / spoon-feeding, neglecting the latter and treating it with just silence because of lack of time. Such a neglect is neither ideal nor desirable, yet it happens constantly and causes orders of magnitude less drama than swearing and actual insults, never makes any headline in Hacker News or anywhere else, and does not require any Code of Whatever. It's just basic meritocracy and it just works; routinely.
> Then why bother commenting on this thread at all? [..] I'm specifically talking about that document and why it was added and why kernel maintainers are grumpy and post nasty replies.
Because the kernel community is quite clearly not as special as you seem to think it is, it's made of almost normal human beings, and any drama happening to it is barely different from what happens and happened anywhere else, including in ages-old literature - or brand new like XKCD.
> I think we are in violent agreement that you do not understand kernel maintainership.
Repeating this is not going to make it more relevant (afraid relevance is not the main intention behind the repetition).
Conflict over a code
Conflict over a code