4 ms·
He's "abusive" toward technical incompetence. We don't want incompetent contributions to Linux.
by malvosenior 8y ago
He's "abusive" toward technical incompetence. We don't want incompetent contributions to Linux.
- genera1 8y agoHe was abusive toward people, who made mistakes. There are ways of providing feedback, that don't include belittling people, questioning their mental health or straight up name-calling.
- joshuamorton 8y ago> Of course, I'd also suggest that whoever was the genius who thought it was a good idea to read things ONE F-CKING BYTE AT A TIME with system calls for each byte should be retroactively aborted. Who the f-ck does idiotic things like that? How did they noty die as babies, considering that they were likely too stupid to find a tit to suck on? [replaced asterisks with - for formatting] Is not being abusive towards technical incompetence. Its being abusive towards a person who made a mistake. You can be as forceful and as clear about technical problems without being abusive. A simple "this patch should never have been accepted, and if the approver continues to accept bad changes like this I'll need to re-evaluate their position as a maintainer" gets the same, or perhaps an even more forceful message about the technical issues across, without any personal attacks. Technical incompetence need not be tolerated. But suggesting someone be retroactively aborted shouldn't be either.