On Thu 08-09-22 02:35:48, Kent Overstreet wrote: > 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. Then you have probably missed a huge part of my emails. Please re-read. If those arguments are not clear, feel free to ask for clarification. Reducing the whole my reasoning and objections to the sentence above and calling that vapid and lazy is not only unfair but also disrespectful. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
