Re: about the flood of trivial patches and the Code of Conduct (was: Re: [PATCH 19/25] sched: Use bool function return values of true/false not 1/0)

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>]

* Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:

> 
> * Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 2015-03-31 at 11:03 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 04:46:17PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > > Use the normal return values for bool functions
> > > > > 
> > > > > Update the other sets of ret in try_wait_for_completion.
> > > > 
> > > > I'm missing a why; why are you doing this?
> > > 
> > > Let me guess: Joe Perches is suffering from 'trivialititis': a 
> > > sickness that prevents a non-newbie kernel developer from raising 
> > > beyond churning out a flood of trivial patches and creating 
> > > unnecessary churn for other developers with these borderline 
> > > useless patches?
> > >
> > > Linux is a meritocracy, not a bureaucracy.
> > 
> > Good morning Ingo.
> > 
> > As you are a signer of that "code of conflict" patch,
> > I'll be mildly amused, but not surprised, if you are
> > among the first participants.
> 
> So as a reply to my joke directed against your (costly: see below) 
> flood of trivial and somewhat bureaucratic patches that PeterZ 
> complained about, which reply of mine aimed at getting you to change 
> from your many years old pattern of producing trivial patches towards 
> producing more substantial patches, causes you to issue a threat of 
> bureaucratic action against me?
> 
> Wow.
> 
> I'd also like to stress that I don't think you have answered PeterZ's 
> legitimate technical question adequately: what are the technological 
> justifications for doing this 25 patches series - returning 0/1 or 
> true/false is clearly a matter of taste unless mixed within the same 
> function. In fact what are your technological justifications for doing 
> so many trivial patches in general?
> 
> Please don't bother producing and sending me such trivial patches 
> unless they:
> 
>   - fix a real bug (in which case they are not trivial patches anymore)
> 
>   - or are part of a larger (non-trivial!) series that does some real,
>     substantial work on this code that tries to:
> 
>          - fix existing code
> 
>          - speed up existing code
> 
>          - or expand upon existing code with new code
> 
>          - turn totally unreadable code into something readable
>            (for example in drivers/staging/)
> 
> The reason I'm not applying your patch is that trivial patches, even 
> if they seem borderline useful, with no substance following them up, 
> often have more costs than benefits:
> 
>  - they lead to pointless churn:
> 
>     - they take up Git space (and bandwidth) for no good reason
> 
>     - they slow down bisection of real changes
> 
>     - they take up (valuable!) reviewer bandwidth
> 
>     - they take up maintainer bandwidth

Not to mention that one of your trivial patches in this series 
actually introduced a bug:

  lkml.kernel.org/r/1427867186.18175.60.camel@perches.com

Which additional risk adds to the cost side of the equation as well.

Thanks,

	Ingo