"'Good enough' is never good enough ;) What is the ideal implementation? Let's implement that."
"Geeze you're picky! If everyone was like you we wouldn't need that nice oops-printing code."
"These closed lists are a pain. Lots of subprojects have moved their lists to vger.kernel.org in recent months. It gets close to zero spam. Hint."
"This is a bugfixed version of 2.6.26-rc5-mm2, which was a bugfixed version of 2.6.26-rc5-mm1. None of the git trees were repulled for -mm3 (and nor were they repulled for -mm2). The aim here is to get all the stupid bugs out of the way so that some serious MM testing can be performed. Please perform some serious MM testing."
"That's quite buggy and would have generated so many runtime warnings in a 'developer' setup (rofl) that I look at Documentation/SubmitChecklist and just weep."
"I'm all edicted out. Sometimes one just puts forth the reasoning and lets others decide whether it's worth bothering about."
"I do think that if one is already changing a line which is incorrectly laid out then there's no point in _leaving_ it incorrect. There's no downside to fixing it. That being said, it's often sorely tempting to go hunting down nearby sillinesses. I succumb to that temptation and usually won't complain when others do also, up to a point."
"Have you ever been an hour and a half into a bisection at 3AM then hit a massive oops deep in the TCP code which was spread across a large number of commits? I have and it wasn't fun. If I remember correctly I gave up and went to bed."
"This is a(nother) case where a toolchain/process problem is forcing us to do something which we don't want to do. In an ideal world we should tell the git developers 'we want x, please' and hopefully they can give it to us. Because right now, we're having to work around shortcomings in git and we are producing a lesser product as a result of this.
"I don't like to merge patches which fix typos and spellos and grammaros in comments, simply because I'd be buried in the things. I do take such fixes for user-visible text (Documentation/, kerneldoc comments and printks)."
"Who did the reverse-engineering, and how was it done? Please make us confident that we won't get our butts sued off or something."
"This is poor old me trying to herd a million mad monkeys, only one escaped."
"It really helps if submitters tell us that a patch fixes another pending patch, and which one that is. Usually I have to ask if I can't work it out. But if a) we weren't told that and b) I have no reason to think it's not a mainline problem and c) the patch applies to mainline and d) the patch affects an architecture which I'm not cross-compiling for, it's going to sneak through.
"We're in include hell, I think."
"`tmp' is an awful identifier, and renaming it to `temp' hardly improves it."