3 ms·

Parser fails to parse data --> Fixed by modifying ingested data Just that the ingested data is a part of the Linux kernel codebase. Quite some hubris to procee

Parser fails to parse data --> Fixed by modifying ingested data Just that the ingested data is a part of the Linux kernel codebase. Quite some hubris to proceed and apply such a "fix" by making a commit to the Linux kernel...

IncreasePosts 3y ago
The author and committer are two separate people, so it isn't like one person unilaterally submitting this.
- HPsquared 3y ago
  Even worse!
- bigiain 3y ago
  And next we discover the dev who committed the change was Jia Tan...
bjackman 3y ago
Arguably it would be fine if the community benefited from the parser. After all it's just a custom, undocumented format that lives specifically in this one repo. But I totally sympathise with Linus' annoyance when the issue is with an external tool, and the author didn't explain which tool or give any reason why it's hard to fix that tool.
- karma_pharmer 3y ago
  The nom_kconfig crate has tabs-vs-spaces bugs too. Unfortunately until somebody spends the time to create a Kconfig test suite, the kernel itself needs to be the test case for this oddity. https://docs.rs/nom-kconfig/latest/nom_kconfig/ https://docs.rs/nom-kconfig/latest/nom_kconfig/
cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
You cant use “hubris” as a pejorative and go on to claim that Linus is the good guy. There’s clearly hubris on both sides, and only one of the sides made a big deal about it. Developers change things for parsers all the time. That’s, like, coding.
- Brian_K_White 3y ago
  Incorrect. It's only hubris on one side. It's both Linus's plain arbitrary right, and his plain job, his defined role and office, to make exactly such decisions for this project. That's not hubris. It's just a role that affects a lot of people. What makes it hubris on one side is "Who do you think you are making such a change to the Linux kernel that everyone else will have to accept?" The reason things like that are phrased as questions is to allow for the possibility that there might be an answer. For one of these parties, the question is rhetorical. For one of these parties, the question is not rhetorical.
  - halJordan 3y ago
    You're misunderstanding the statement (probably because of hubris). Linus has a long tail of hubris-informed acts that have been blessed off, accepted, and rationalized. No one is saying this particular rejection is one of those: Just that if it's ok for Linus to be full of hubris (and it incontrovertibly is) and then it cant be a criticism of this guy either.
    - ikekkdcjkfke 3y ago
      Hubris implies over-confidence, this dude has the skills and knowledge
    - Brian_K_White 3y ago
      Hubris is overreaching. Linus is not overreaching. His reach actually is farther than yours or mine, and this act and most others are not hubris. It's not even being full of himself.
- rickdeckard 3y ago

IncreasePosts 3y ago

The author and committer are two separate people, so it isn't like one person unilaterally submitting this.

HPsquared 3y ago
Even worse!
bigiain 3y ago
And next we discover the dev who committed the change was Jia Tan...

bjackman 3y ago

Arguably it would be fine if the community benefited from the parser. After all it's just a custom, undocumented format that lives specifically in this one repo. But I totally sympathise with Linus' annoyance when the issue is with an external tool, and the author didn't explain which tool or give any reason why it's hard to fix that tool.

karma_pharmer 3y ago
The nom_kconfig crate has tabs-vs-spaces bugs too. Unfortunately until somebody spends the time to create a Kconfig test suite, the kernel itself needs to be the test case for this oddity. https://docs.rs/nom-kconfig/latest/nom_kconfig/ https://docs.rs/nom-kconfig/latest/nom_kconfig/

cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago

You cant use “hubris” as a pejorative and go on to claim that Linus is the good guy. There’s clearly hubris on both sides, and only one of the sides made a big deal about it. Developers change things for parsers all the time. That’s, like, coding.

Brian_K_White 3y ago
Incorrect. It's only hubris on one side. It's both Linus's plain arbitrary right, and his plain job, his defined role and office, to make exactly such decisions for this project. That's not hubris. It's just a role that affects a lot of people. What makes it hubris on one side is "Who do you think you are making such a change to the Linux kernel that everyone else will have to accept?" The reason things like that are phrased as questions is to allow for the possibility that there might be an answer. For one of these parties, the question is rhetorical. For one of these parties, the question is not rhetorical.
- halJordan 3y ago
  You're misunderstanding the statement (probably because of hubris). Linus has a long tail of hubris-informed acts that have been blessed off, accepted, and rationalized. No one is saying this particular rejection is one of those: Just that if it's ok for Linus to be full of hubris (and it incontrovertibly is) and then it cant be a criticism of this guy either.
  - ikekkdcjkfke 3y ago
    Hubris implies over-confidence, this dude has the skills and knowledge
  - Brian_K_White 3y ago
    Hubris is overreaching. Linus is not overreaching. His reach actually is farther than yours or mine, and this act and most others are not hubris. It's not even being full of himself.
rickdeckard 3y ago