Re: CFD: linux-wanking@vger.kernel.org (was [PATCH] Standard indentation of arguments)

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...>
Cc: <linux-kernel@...>, <davem@...>
Date: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - 5:41 am

On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 01:50:37AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:

Of course I speak for myself.  And I am absolutely open about my belief
that such _contribution_s_ need to be discouraged.  Actively.

Hell, a month ago I mentioned right-justifying text in comments as
"we'll never reach _that_" kind of pointless idiocy.  And there we
are, much closer to that than I ever expected.

I have nothing against contributors.  I *DO* have a lot against a very
specific class of contributions.  Exactly because they actively prevent
people from moving on to saner stuff.  Rule of the thumb: if a pointless
activity can be carried indefinitely long and creates an impression of
busy doing something, it ought to be discouraged.

Basically, something one could do as infinitely stretchable time-filler
when one _really_ doesn't feel like doing anything that might require
thinking.  Think of this situations like "I need to write the next
part of paper, but I just can't get around to starting it; anything
but that - let's rearrange the order of references, rearrange the
pencils, whatever".

And that is where I believe Ingo is wrong - dropping the level of acceptable
pointlessness of patches does *not* encourage meaningful contributions; it
discourages them.  Ladder doesn't become more accessible if you extend it
down into swamp; there's a reasonable starting level from which one _does_
go up.  It's impossible to define formally, but it's quite real and I'm
very afraid that it's rapidly getting harder to find.  Harder for newbies.


Sheesh, indeed.
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[PATCH] Standard indentation of arguments, Jianjun Kong, (Wed May 21, 1:58 am)
Re: CFD: linux-wanking@vger.kernel.org (was [PATCH] Standard..., Christoph Hellwig, (Wed May 21, 6:32 am)
Re: CFD: linux-wanking@vger.kernel.org, David Miller, (Wed May 21, 3:49 pm)
Re: CFD: linux-wanking@vger.kernel.org, Al Viro, (Wed May 21, 6:03 pm)
Re: CFD: linux-wanking@vger.kernel.org (was [PATCH] Standard..., Arjan van de Ven, (Thu May 22, 11:29 am)
Re: CFD: linux-wanking@vger.kernel.org, David Miller, (Wed May 21, 4:10 pm)
Re: CFD: linux-wanking@vger.kernel.org, Willy Tarreau, (Wed May 21, 5:25 pm)
Re: CFD: linux-wanking@vger.kernel.org, Stefan Richter, (Wed May 21, 5:44 pm)
Re: CFD: linux-wanking@vger.kernel.org, Willy Tarreau, (Wed May 21, 5:56 pm)
Re: CFD: linux-wanking@vger.kernel.org (was [PATCH] Standard..., Al Viro, (Wed May 21, 5:41 am)
Re: CFD: linux-wanking@vger.kernel.org, David Miller, (Wed May 21, 5:19 am)
Re: [PATCH] Standard indentation of arguments, Jiri Slaby, (Wed May 21, 3:19 am)
Re: [PATCH] Standard indentation of arguments, David Newall, (Wed May 21, 7:35 am)