Re: about the flood of trivial patches and the Code of Conduct (was: Re: [PATCH 19/25] sched: Use bool function return values of true/false not 1/0)
From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Tue Apr 07 2015 - 05:27:42 EST
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> * Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-03-31 at 11:03 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 04:46:17PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > > Use the normal return values for bool functions
> > > > >
> > > > > Update the other sets of ret in try_wait_for_completion.
> > > >
> > > > I'm missing a why; why are you doing this?
> > >
> > > Let me guess: Joe Perches is suffering from 'trivialititis': a
> > > sickness that prevents a non-newbie kernel developer from raising
> > > beyond churning out a flood of trivial patches and creating
> > > unnecessary churn for other developers with these borderline
> > > useless patches?
> > >
> > > Linux is a meritocracy, not a bureaucracy.
> > Good morning Ingo.
> > As you are a signer of that "code of conflict" patch,
> > I'll be mildly amused, but not surprised, if you are
> > among the first participants.
> So as a reply to my joke directed against your (costly: see below)
> flood of trivial and somewhat bureaucratic patches that PeterZ
> complained about, which reply of mine aimed at getting you to change
> from your many years old pattern of producing trivial patches towards
> producing more substantial patches, causes you to issue a threat of
> bureaucratic action against me?
> I'd also like to stress that I don't think you have answered PeterZ's
> legitimate technical question adequately: what are the technological
> justifications for doing this 25 patches series - returning 0/1 or
> true/false is clearly a matter of taste unless mixed within the same
> function. In fact what are your technological justifications for doing
> so many trivial patches in general?
> Please don't bother producing and sending me such trivial patches
> unless they:
> - fix a real bug (in which case they are not trivial patches anymore)
> - or are part of a larger (non-trivial!) series that does some real,
> substantial work on this code that tries to:
> - fix existing code
> - speed up existing code
> - or expand upon existing code with new code
> - turn totally unreadable code into something readable
> (for example in drivers/staging/)
> The reason I'm not applying your patch is that trivial patches, even
> if they seem borderline useful, with no substance following them up,
> often have more costs than benefits:
> - they lead to pointless churn:
> - they take up Git space (and bandwidth) for no good reason
> - they slow down bisection of real changes
> - they take up (valuable!) reviewer bandwidth
> - they take up maintainer bandwidth
Not to mention that one of your trivial patches in this series
actually introduced a bug:
Which additional risk adds to the cost side of the equation as well.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/