Filtering noise is about protecting resourses

[xerofoify@gmail.com (nick)]

Bjorn,
I understand that now after reading your message. To be honest, I started out like this because I had no idea,
where to start. If your willing to give me a place to start, that is of use I will be glad to help out. Over
time, I hope we can work this out.
Nick 

On 2014-12-09 04:24 AM, Bj?rn Mork wrote:
> Philipp Muhoray <philipp.muhoray@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Not that I have any say in this, but I feel like a ban should rather
>> be justified by someone's behavior instead of incorrect patches.
> 
> It's not a ban, it's a protective filter.  Maintainers and reviewers are
> limited resources.  We should not waste them.
> 
>> I
>> guess most of us have send awful patches at some point, the question
>> though is how we dealt with it. I'm not saying the ban should be
>> lifted, I'm just saying we should communicate the right arguments for
>> his ban (instead of blaming him for commit messages he didn't even
>> write).
> 
> If you look at what actually happened, you'll see a very good example of
> why the filter is still required: The original patch was yet another
> completely pointless fixme-comment deletion, without any real
> explanation whatsoever in the commit message.  And it wasn't even
> properly formatted with a subsystem prefixed subject etc. So the
> maintainer had to spend time trying to fix up the commit message and
> figuring out why it was OK to delete those fixme comments.  As has been
> pointed out here, that explanation could still be incomplete.  I guess
> the maintainer didn't want to spend hours looking at something as
> pointless as this.  The problem is that he didn't realize that this
> patch was a waste of time before spending time on it at all.
> 
> Which is exactly why the maintainers should be protected against having
> to look at stuff like this, if possible.  And in this case it *is*.
> There are exactly zero examples of valuable patches from that author.
> If you look at the history of accepted patches, you will find that in
> each and every case there is some reviewer or maintainer doing the
> *real* work - figuring out that the patch is OK and explaining why.  And
> the result is still patches without any real value.  They don't solve
> any problem for anyone.  They are the result of stupid and mindless
> grepping for a specific word in comments.
> 
> Yes, we have all wasted time for maintainers and reviewers by sending
> them stuff we shouldn't have. That's part of the game.  The problem in
> this case is the massive distribution over an insane number of
> subsystems in combination with the inability to learn anything at all.
> Wasting one maintainer's time once is excusable.  Wasting hundreds of
> maintainer's time over and over again is absolutely not.  It's
> potentionally destructive to the whole project if it is allowed to
> continue. 
> 
> This very thread is yet another example of the contentless noise from
> this source, and I hate myself for having wasted your time having to
> read this.  Sorry about that.
> 
> But I write it in the hope that you will understand that the filtering
> is *not* about punishing anyone.  It is about protecting or most valuable
> resources.
> 
> And if anyone still wonders: Requests for "ban removal" has no value to
> the community, and are therefore the exact opposite of what's required
> to have the filter removed.
> 
> 
> Bj?rn
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Kernelnewbies mailing list
> Kernelnewbies at kernelnewbies.org
> http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
>