6 ms·

I don't think extrapolating "one person who acts badly not being much of a loss" to "all maintainers should leave" is a good interpretation of what was said.

jacquesm 3y ago
If this person is a wanker they all are, if this person should leave they all should leave. Absolutely nothing happened here that warrants such a response.
- wang_li 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    You really should familiarize yourself a bit more with how contributions to the kernel work, especially because there is an excellent document that lays out exactly how contributions to the kernel are handled. You can find it here: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.17/process/submitting-patches.html https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.17/process/submitting-pat...
    - wang_li 3y ago
      No part of that document details out that if you fail to follow their exact ritual then they get to steal your code and include it as their own. In comments all over this thread you go on about OP not following the proper ritual to appease the Greg Kroah-Hartman, for the code not being significant enough, for being unsolicited, for not being exactly as some random maintainer would like it. None of that matters. What matters is that this guy's code is in the kernel, unattributed, with minimal changes. If the kernel maintainers feel the ritual wasn't followed, then they can reject the patch, not steal it.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        > If the kernel maintainers feel the ritual wasn't followed, then they can reject the patch That's exactly what they did.
        wang_li 3y ago
        What a strange definition of rejected. Keeping 97% of the patch and changing 3% of the patch isn't what anyone would considered rejection.
        afr0ck 3y ago
        Seeiously, what are you expecting from Michael? Go back and forth with the newbie until he makes a perfect patch? Sorry, but that's bullshit and clearly a horrible use of a maintainer's time. Michael did his best by fixing the patch and incorporating into the kernel and properly giving credit to the newbie by using the "Reported-By". The fact that there isn't a proper tag to describe the newbie's case is not Michael's fault. Maybe the kernel should add a "Debugged-and-fix-suggested-by", but I also think this is bullshit.
        foldr 3y ago
        As noted elsewhere in the thread, there is no fixed set of tags that Michael was limited to choosing from. And he has now acknowledged that the use of Reported-By was incorrect: https://www.mail-archive.com/linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org/msg221990.html https://www.mail-archive.com/linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org/m...
        afr0ck 3y ago
        Again as I said, maybe "Reported-By" was not the most correct tag, but it still attributes some form of credit to the newbie. I just think that's too much woke culture and self entitlement from the newbie. You just have to work harder and up your skills to match the maintainer's standards before you can be called a kernel hacker. One or two patches, imho, is not enough to be called a kernel hacker, especially when it's only about fixig a bug. I fixed many similar obscure bugs. Writing a precise algorithm for Automatic NUMA balancing is a true kernel challenge for which one deserves to be called a kernel hacker. When I started contributing to the kernel, it was super painful and I failed multiple times. I got super harsh comments (someone called me "retard. It was fun, I laughed, eventually part of my work gor merged) but I always respected the maintainers and I was eager to better myself and improve my analytical and development skills with an open mind to be as sharp as the senior hackers. I always looked up to them and never thought in the same way the newbie did when my patches got re-written or dismissed. I just considered myself "not good enough" and I felt "I had to work harder and smarter".

jacquesm 3y ago

If this person is a wanker they all are, if this person should leave they all should leave. Absolutely nothing happened here that warrants such a response.

wang_li 3y ago
[flagged]
- jacquesm 3y ago
  You really should familiarize yourself a bit more with how contributions to the kernel work, especially because there is an excellent document that lays out exactly how contributions to the kernel are handled. You can find it here: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.17/process/submitting-patches.html https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.17/process/submitting-pat...
  - wang_li 3y ago
    No part of that document details out that if you fail to follow their exact ritual then they get to steal your code and include it as their own. In comments all over this thread you go on about OP not following the proper ritual to appease the Greg Kroah-Hartman, for the code not being significant enough, for being unsolicited, for not being exactly as some random maintainer would like it. None of that matters. What matters is that this guy's code is in the kernel, unattributed, with minimal changes. If the kernel maintainers feel the ritual wasn't followed, then they can reject the patch, not steal it.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      > If the kernel maintainers feel the ritual wasn't followed, then they can reject the patch That's exactly what they did.
      - wang_li 3y ago
        What a strange definition of rejected. Keeping 97% of the patch and changing 3% of the patch isn't what anyone would considered rejection.
        afr0ck 3y ago
        Seeiously, what are you expecting from Michael? Go back and forth with the newbie until he makes a perfect patch? Sorry, but that's bullshit and clearly a horrible use of a maintainer's time. Michael did his best by fixing the patch and incorporating into the kernel and properly giving credit to the newbie by using the "Reported-By". The fact that there isn't a proper tag to describe the newbie's case is not Michael's fault. Maybe the kernel should add a "Debugged-and-fix-suggested-by", but I also think this is bullshit.
        foldr 3y ago
        As noted elsewhere in the thread, there is no fixed set of tags that Michael was limited to choosing from. And he has now acknowledged that the use of Reported-By was incorrect: https://www.mail-archive.com/linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org/msg221990.html https://www.mail-archive.com/linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org/m...
        afr0ck 3y ago
        Again as I said, maybe "Reported-By" was not the most correct tag, but it still attributes some form of credit to the newbie. I just think that's too much woke culture and self entitlement from the newbie. You just have to work harder and up your skills to match the maintainer's standards before you can be called a kernel hacker. One or two patches, imho, is not enough to be called a kernel hacker, especially when it's only about fixig a bug. I fixed many similar obscure bugs. Writing a precise algorithm for Automatic NUMA balancing is a true kernel challenge for which one deserves to be called a kernel hacker. When I started contributing to the kernel, it was super painful and I failed multiple times. I got super harsh comments (someone called me "retard. It was fun, I laughed, eventually part of my work gor merged) but I always respected the maintainers and I was eager to better myself and improve my analytical and development skills with an open mind to be as sharp as the senior hackers. I always looked up to them and never thought in the same way the newbie did when my patches got re-written or dismissed. I just considered myself "not good enough" and I felt "I had to work harder and smarter".