From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933246AbYEUVGT (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 May 2008 17:06:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751599AbYEUVGG (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 May 2008 17:06:06 -0400 Received: from smtpq1.groni1.gr.home.nl ([213.51.130.200]:40791 "EHLO smtpq1.groni1.gr.home.nl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750926AbYEUVGD (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 May 2008 17:06:03 -0400 Message-ID: <48348F4D.1020500@keyaccess.nl> Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 23:08:29 +0200 From: Rene Herman User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Morton 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) 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> <20080521135014.4a60ff8c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20080521135014.4a60ff8c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 21-05-08 22:50, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 21 May 2008 22:38:04 +0200 > Rene Herman wrote: >> 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. Do note that in the above I did not suggest that the problem isn't real. I'm just suggesting that it's not the _kernel's_ problem. The openness adds significant value to the kernel. I'd say more value then would be brought in by developers who now shy away from the process. And yes, it's general openness. Noone is being ripped apart when they actually listen to feedback. > 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. The actual case in point was a little odd though. I do not for a minute believe that any serious developer is going to shy away from submitting serious code due to an alignment patch getting a cynical slapdown. Rene.