From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1765526AbYEUJmH (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 May 2008 05:42:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755220AbYEUJl4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 May 2008 05:41:56 -0400 Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:49301 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750963AbYEUJlz (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 May 2008 05:41:55 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 10:41:54 +0100 From: Al Viro To: Andrew Morton Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net Subject: Re: CFD: linux-wanking@vger.kernel.org (was [PATCH] Standard indentation of arguments) Message-ID: <20080521094153.GN28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <12113495282137-git-send-email-kongjianjun@gmail.com> <20080521083413.GM28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20080521015037.add0b78e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080521015037.add0b78e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 01:50:37AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 21 May 2008 09:34:13 +0100 Al Viro wrote: > > > This is a call for discussion for new maillist on vger. > > > > List name: linux-wanking@vger.kernel.org > > Oh, what a marvellous way to encourage new contributors that was. Thank > you so much. > > For the record: Al speaks only for himself and a lack of expressed > disagrement from others should not be taken as agreement. Of course I speak for myself. And I am absolutely open about my belief that such _contribution_s_ need to be discouraged. Actively. Hell, a month ago I mentioned right-justifying text in comments as "we'll never reach _that_" kind of pointless idiocy. And there we are, much closer to that than I ever expected. I have nothing against contributors. I *DO* have a lot against a very specific class of contributions. Exactly because they actively prevent people from moving on to saner stuff. Rule of the thumb: if a pointless activity can be carried indefinitely long and creates an impression of busy doing something, it ought to be discouraged. Basically, something one could do as infinitely stretchable time-filler when one _really_ doesn't feel like doing anything that might require thinking. Think of this situations like "I need to write the next part of paper, but I just can't get around to starting it; anything but that - let's rearrange the order of references, rearrange the pencils, whatever". And that is where I believe Ingo is wrong - dropping the level of acceptable pointlessness of patches does *not* encourage meaningful contributions; it discourages them. Ladder doesn't become more accessible if you extend it down into swamp; there's a reasonable starting level from which one _does_ go up. It's impossible to define formally, but it's quite real and I'm very afraid that it's rapidly getting harder to find. Harder for newbies. > Sheesh Sheesh, indeed.