3 ms·

"only ever directed at contributors who are experienced enough". That's not strictly true, see e.g. https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2017-Febru

by dom0 9y ago

"only ever directed at contributors who are experienced enough". That's not strictly true, see e.g. https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2017-February/133837.html https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2017-Februa...

saghm 9y ago
Props to Daniel for defending the contributor, as I'm guessing they wouldn't feel comfortable arguing back with Linus.
- icebraining 9y ago
  To me it reads like redirecting blame to the contributor by appearing to "defend" him. Linus was obviously replying (and chastising) the person who sent him the code, and who was supposed to review it beforehand, not the original author.
  - dullgiulio 9y ago
    https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2017-February/133794.html https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2017-Februa... Yep, that's right: "I'm upset, because I expect better quality control. In fact, I expect some qualitty[sic] control."
  - saghm 9y ago
    Ah, I guess I should have read the previous emails that led up Daniel's response
wtallis 9y ago
I'm not seeing where the ire was directed at anybody new. The two messages Linus sent were in reply to a pull request from Dave Airlie, a very high-level and extremely experienced developer. Daniel Vetter tried to chastise Linus for chewing out some new contributor named Noralf, but it appears that the real problem is that the problems with Noralf's code went unfixed by intermediaries like Vetter and Airlie and made it all the way to Linus. The kernel shouldn't let bad code into the tree just because the author is inexperienced. Subsystem maintainers are supposed to be a very thorough filter, so that the patches reaching Linus are up to standard. When bad code makes it to Linus, it's his job to complain about it. And based on that thread, it looks like he was complaining about it, and was not directing the complaints at the original author but at the people who were responsible for reviewing and testing the code.

by dom0 9y ago

saghm 9y ago

Props to Daniel for defending the contributor, as I'm guessing they wouldn't feel comfortable arguing back with Linus.

icebraining 9y ago
To me it reads like redirecting blame to the contributor by appearing to "defend" him. Linus was obviously replying (and chastising) the person who sent him the code, and who was supposed to review it beforehand, not the original author.
- dullgiulio 9y ago
  https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2017-February/133794.html https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2017-Februa... Yep, that's right: "I'm upset, because I expect better quality control. In fact, I expect some qualitty[sic] control."
- saghm 9y ago
  Ah, I guess I should have read the previous emails that led up Daniel's response

wtallis 9y ago

I'm not seeing where the ire was directed at anybody new. The two messages Linus sent were in reply to a pull request from Dave Airlie, a very high-level and extremely experienced developer. Daniel Vetter tried to chastise Linus for chewing out some new contributor named Noralf, but it appears that the real problem is that the problems with Noralf's code went unfixed by intermediaries like Vetter and Airlie and made it all the way to Linus. The kernel shouldn't let bad code into the tree just because the author is inexperienced. Subsystem maintainers are supposed to be a very thorough filter, so that the patches reaching Linus are up to standard. When bad code makes it to Linus, it's his job to complain about it. And based on that thread, it looks like he was complaining about it, and was not directing the complaints at the original author but at the people who were responsible for reviewing and testing the code.