From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S937307AbYEUUuv (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 May 2008 16:50:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755391AbYEUUun (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 May 2008 16:50:43 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:42461 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752440AbYEUUum (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 May 2008 16:50:42 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 13:50:14 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Rene Herman Cc: tytso@mit.edu, viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net Subject: Re: CFD: linux-wanking@vger.kernel.org (was [PATCH] Standard indentation of arguments) Message-Id: <20080521135014.4a60ff8c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <4834882C.9000703@keyaccess.nl> References: <12113495282137-git-send-email-kongjianjun@gmail.com> <20080521083413.GM28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20080521015037.add0b78e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080521094153.GN28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20080521104418.736e3379.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080521194536.GM8581@mit.edu> <4834882C.9000703@keyaccess.nl> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.8.20; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 21 May 2008 22:38:04 +0200 Rene Herman wrote: > On 21-05-08 21:45, Theodore Tso wrote: > > > (But if they are getting their patches ripped apart during the code > > review, and that's causing them to lose face inside their company, > > that's a different problem.) > > Yes. Their company's problem. I must say I'm getting rather sick of this > hiding behind culture. Does anyone think it's good for _anyone_ from any > culture to be publicly called upon their mistakes? Public is simply what > this development is and what makes it different from other types. > > People who can't deal with it either grow up, go away or better still, > try their damndest to minimise mistakes to avoid the experience in the > first place. That last one in fact is one of the fundamental reason why > open source works. > Sigh. There are kernel contributions which have not been submitted partly because their developers are apprehensive about the way in which they will be treated. This is not theory. It is not a guess. It is not speculation. It is empirical observation. We have a bad reputation. I think it is largely undeserved nowadays, because things have got a lot better. But once a reputation has stuck, it is hard to get it unstuck. When I am on the podium and this problem is brought up by an audience member (as regularly happens), my usual response is to say that things have become better, that the problem was discussed at some length at kernel summit a few years ago (as it was) and that people generally agreed that it was a problem and that we should do better and that we are doing better. And we _are_ doing better. On average. But in this area, averages do not count. It's the maxima which are noticed.