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

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Wed, 21 May 2008 22:38:04 +0200
Rene Herman <rene.herman@keyaccess.nl> 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.