4 ms·

I prefer the first version. Saying something is "pure garbage" gets the point across far more effectively than being polite. I doubt the latter would have resul

I prefer the first version. Saying something is "pure garbage" gets the point across far more effectively than being polite. I doubt the latter would have resulted in any coverage on tech blogs or got the attention of anyone at github. I don't agree with making direct personal criticisms towards people, but I think it's perfectly acceptable to be very blunt when responding to a bad idea (or patch, or whatever). In my own work I prefer blunt and honest feedback rather than attempts to avoid hurting my emotions. Of course it's always better if that criticism is combined with a constructive suggestions on how to fix the problem.

primatology 14y ago
But Github pull requests are not pure garbage. They work very, very well for plenty of other open source projects. To call them "pure garbage" is clear exaggeration. Honesty and courtesy are not mutually exclusive. "Github pull requests simply do not work for a project the size of the kernel" is terse, blunt, and still polite.
- peterkelly 14y ago
  > To call them "pure garbage" is clear exaggeration. If that's true then fair enough, and I think your version of the comment is a nice middle ground. I've never actually used github myself, and was only commenting on his tone of voice. If something is truly pure garbage, I think it should be said so, but I guess that's not the case here.