Re: CFD: linux-wanking@vger.kernel.org (was [PATCH] Standard indentation of arguments)

[Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>]

On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 01:50:37AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 09:34:13 +0100 Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> 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.