4 ms·
One might be inclined to go back and review all commits by the person who chose to commit this sledgehammer solution.
by z9znz 4y ago
One might be inclined to go back and review all commits by the person who chose to commit this sledgehammer solution.
- bonzini 4y agoThat would be one of the maintainers of the Linux graphics subsystem. He has almost 4000 Linux kernel commits on his resume, so you're in for quite some work. Also the patch that was committed (which was the third version) was reviewed by two other developers and acked by two more. That will add about 1700 more commits to your endeavor.
- MrStonedOne 4y ago
- qull 4y agoThat all may be true, and be even more worrying.
- bonzini 4y agoOr you might be experiencing the Dunning-Kruger effect, I don't know.
- z9znz 4y agoThe point which your parent post made, and which I was implying in my original post, is that if the committer was willing to commit such a clumsy "fix", what else might they commit in other places? Nobody said the committer was not intelligent nor prolific. What was implicitly brought into question was the judgement of the person. "But all the people who reviewed and accepte the commit!..." Sometimes reviewers don't pay full attention (because they are busy). Or sometimes they don't feel confident to challenge someone. Or they may be inexperienced.
- bonzini 4y agoI understood, and I do believe you're experiencing the Dunning-Kruger effect as well. First, the graphics subsystem of Linux is in fact one of those that puts more weight on reviews even for code authored by the maintainers. Second, do you have any idea if the issue being solved here and what a less clumsy fix would look like. Nobody is denying that it's clumsy, which is why it is being reverted, but have you evaluated the alternatives or even bothered to look up mailing list discussions before making your conclusions about it?