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.
