>> Why do you interpret my patch review contributions in this direction >> when the official Linux development documentation provides special advice >> on affected wording details? > > Your "contributions" are garbage in general, My contributions are also varying (as usual) through the years. > and this thread is not an exception. It is just another example for involved communication challenges. > More specifically, you are picking an advice Some development activities are reminders according to known information sources. > that is inapplicable, > transforming it into a question and "contributing" the result. > > And your entire modus operandi fits that pattern - you spew random garbage and > expect the contributors to spend their time and efforts on checking if your > (contents-free) "advice" happens to make any sense. Do you express special concerns here which can be reconsidered because of advices and requirements from software development guidelines? … > Unfortunately, the kernel development is clearly > not among those. How does such a view fit to an other data representation? https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/log/?qt=author&q=Elfring Regards, Markus
