in more detail: any "negative reinforcement" should be on the
_technical_ level, i.e. when changes are handled - not at the broad tree
level.
Sure, there are exceptions, etc. - but by the time stuff goes upstream
it's too late and we've got to fix stuff instead of trying to push back
on each other.
by earlier integration (= linux-next) we can do the pushback much
earlier, in a much more granular, much more technical in a much less
personal way: "hey Ingo, your new sched-dizzy-blah patch broke stuff
here, zap it" or "hey Dave, that socket-foo rewrite just broke things
here, zap it".
git-revert _kind of_ makes that possible too, but people still feel too
personal about reverts - they take it as intrusion into their subsystem
and regard it as an attack against their competence as a maintainer.
and this is all so typical btw.: the most effective measure against
human warfare is for people to see each other and to talk to each other.
[ That's one reason why i am so worried about mailing list isolation.
People get more distant, they mean less to each other, work less with
each other => Linux suffers. I do accept that for some people lkml is
simply too noisy - but i think the cure is worse than the disease. ]
Ingo
--
