Local customs as signalling mechanism

Posted Dec 3, 2018 19:20 UTC (Mon) by ecree (guest, #95790)
Parent article: Toward a kernel maintainer's guide

I have long suspected that the reverse xmas tree rule is a "no brown M&Ms clause"⁽¹⁾. I.e. it's there to give maintainers an easy way to tell whether a submitter has taken the effort to learn and follow the subsystem's rules and practices. One could also look at this as a kind of shibboleth.
If this theory is correct, then making these "local customs" more publicly visible could undermine their purpose, and drive maintainers to impose ever more obscure requirements in an arms race against the people documenting them.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Halen#Contract_riders

Local customs as signalling mechanism

Posted Dec 16, 2018 0:05 UTC (Sun) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link] (3 responses)

> If this theory is correct, then making these "local customs" more publicly visible could undermine their purpose,

I doubt Dan or anyone else will ever surface a "reverse Christmas tree rule" at the very *top* of any new documentation, it'll be buried somewhere in the middle as it should. So gathering and structuring this sort of documentation will only make it look *more* like a [Van Halen] contract that is finally possible to read entirely and will make complying with some "brown M&Ms clause" easier if any.

Local customs as signalling mechanism

Posted Dec 16, 2018 0:47 UTC (Sun) by excors (subscriber, #95769) [Link] (2 responses)

Surely the position of the rule in the document should depend entirely on the length of the rule, rather than attempting any sort of logical ordering based on the meanings of the rules.

Local customs as signalling mechanism

Posted Dec 16, 2018 1:12 UTC (Sun) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link] (1 responses)

I normally refrain from posting this type of comments on LWN but sorry can't resist this time: ROFL.

Lame excuse: the previous comment "forgot" a smiley.

Local customs as signalling mechanism

Posted Dec 17, 2018 11:02 UTC (Mon) by sdalley (subscriber, #18550) [Link]

Well, yes indeed. Absence of the smiley amplified the LOL by enhancing the image of the rule being uttered with the utmost seriousness by some po-faced pompous twit.
[pauses to collect myself]