Re: [RFC PATCH 00/30] Code tagging framework and applications

[Suren Baghdasaryan]

On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 11:35 PM Kent Overstreet
<kent.overstreet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 09:45:18AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Sep 2022 09:04:28 -0400
> > Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 01:00:09PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > Hmm, it seems that further discussion doesn't really make much sense
> > > > here. I know how to use my time better.
> > >
> > > Just a thought, but I generally find it more productive to propose ideas than to
> > > just be disparaging.
> > >
> >
> > But it's not Michal's job to do so. He's just telling you that the given
> > feature is not worth the burden. He's telling you the issues that he has
> > with the patch set. It's the submitter's job to address those concerns and
> > not the maintainer's to tell you how to make it better.
> >
> > When Linus tells us that a submission is crap, we don't ask him how to make
> > it less crap, we listen to why he called it crap, and then rewrite to be
> > not so crappy. If we cannot figure it out, it doesn't get in.
>
> When Linus tells someone a submission is crap, he _always_ has a sound, and
> _specific_ technical justification for doing so.
>
> "This code is going to be a considerable maintenance burden" is vapid, and lazy.
> It's the kind of feedback made by someone who has looked at the number of lines
> of code a patch touches and not much more.

I would really appreciate if everyone could please stick to the
technical side of the conversation. That way we can get some
constructive feedback. Everything else is not helpful and at best is a
distraction.
Maintenance burden is a price we pay and I think it's the prerogative
of the maintainers to take that into account. Our job is to prove that
the price is worth paying.

>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kernel-team+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx.
>