5 ms·
> This is, ironically enough, a microcosm of the post author’s complaint: people are replying to their patches without having done the due diligence of gaining
by bheadmaster 4y ago
> This is, ironically enough, a microcosm of the post author’s complaint: people are replying to their patches without having done the due diligence of gaining context in their own first, and are offloading that burden of gaining context onto the patch author instead — which is slowly burning them out
Eh, I get it. Understanding anything takes effort, and each one of us has a limited amount of mental energy per day. Nobody likes wasting it for what they feel is responsibility of another. I wouldn't criticize the author for what happened in the kernel discussion - I don't have enough skill or experience to understand why or how is anyone right or wrong.
What I do have a problem with, is posting an article like this on HN, then shutting every comment down with "read these 15000 lines, peasant, before you even dare to speak". Most people on HN are not kernel hackers, so why the (if I may be blunt - pretentious) gatekeeping? There must be some better way of explaining why someone's comment is wrong than "here, read this large text, figure it out yourself and don't come back until you figure it out". That's just lazy and disrespectful.
- altairprime 4y agoI agree, from a ringside commentary viewpoint; for general chatter on a forum, that’s too much to demand. I think that I’d have preferred a detailed analysis of the hundreds of messages for one patch broken up into segments and assigned categories. For example, and this are made up: 15% of messages stemmed from mis-application of Intel/AMD assumptions to Apple Silicon. Because doing so without naming names, in an opinionated manner, would really help make or break their point. It would also provide ground for the “read all 15,000 lines” viewpoint: either one is arguing that the assessment is improperly conducted, in which case you would need to conduct your own and provide that — or one is arguing that the assessed categorizations are not the correct ones to use, which is a separate useful debate that does not require reading all the messages.