lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [Ksummit-discuss] Call to Action Re: [PATCH 0/7] Code of Conduct: Fix some wording, and add an interpretation document
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 06:46:04PM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> Neil,
>
> I disagree with your framing, and thus your analysis, and thus your
> proposed solution.
>
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 07:26:06AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> > If, for example, Linus or Andrew said "if you cannot work with any given
> > maintainer, I will consider your patch directly, but you need to point
> > to where you tried, and why you failed - or to where the promise is
> > inadequate".
> >
> > Currently if a maintainer is rude to you, there is no where else that
> > you can go and *that* is why it hurts. It isn't the abuse so much as
> > the powerlessness associated with it. If you can (metaphorically) say
> > to that maintainer "I don't care about your toilet mouth, you've just
> > given me the right to take my petition to caesar" - then the emotional
> > response will be quite different to pain.
>
> No. That's just not how things work. Patches don't get rejected
> because maintainers are being rude. Patches don't get accepted
> because they are not of a sufficiently high technical quality.

I once sent a bugfix and instead of applying it, the maintainer insulted
me and rejected it because the subject wasn't in imperative tense and
because I said "NULL dereference" instead of "NULL pointer dereference."

Ten years back there was a patch rejected because "F*** you, what do
women know about programming?" I can't imagine it happening now, but I
was so shocked by it at the time also...

regards,
dan carpenter

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-23 08:28    [W:0.232 / U:0.024 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site