As I understand it, the Linux codebase has hundreds of regular contributors and Torvalds basically spends his entire time reviewing patches to an operating syst

As I understand it, the Linux codebase has hundreds of regular contributors and Torvalds basically spends his entire time reviewing patches to an operating system kernel that is used in countless mission-critical scenarios across the world. The implications of introducing a bug or security exploit to an OS kernel could be as severe as loss of life. With that in mind, I find myself wondering every time I read a report like this: the instrument may be blunt and the punishment humiliating, but is it really unnecessary? If just one more contributor submits a similar patch, the chances of such an error making it through code review is doubled. If you don't have a strong handle on what is being submitted you will quickly lose control. The purpose of a rant like that is not to provide feedback to a contributor that he made a mistake, it's to send a clear message to the wider community that code of that kind must not ever be submitted in the first place. It's a first line of defence against bad code. And to that end, I'd say it's quite effective. I've never written a line of kernel code in my life, and I probably never will. But if I choose to make a contribution to Linux, even a few years from now, I will remember what practices to avoid through my memories of this and previous rants.