On Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 06:48:46PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Nov 07, 2023 at 11:52:17AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 07, 2023 at 09:30:21AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 07, 2023 at 10:12:37AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > Big company's should take the responsibility to train and provide > > > > skill development for their own staff. > > > > > > That would result in a beautiful cathedral of a patch. I know this is > > > how some companies work. We are doing more of a bazaar thing here, > > > though. In a bunch of subsystems it seems that you don't get the > > > necessary skills until you have been publically shouted at by > > > maintainers - better to start early ;). Not a nice environment for > > > novices, for sure. > > > > In my view the "shouting from maintainers" is harmful to the people > > buidling skills and it is an unkind thing to dump employees into that > > kind of situation. > > > > They should have help to establish the basic level of competence where > > they may do the wrong thing, but all the process and presentation of > > the wrong thing is top notch. You get a much better reception. > > What - like e.g. mechanically fixing checkpatch warnings without > understanding? No, not at all. I mean actually going through and explaining what the idea is to another person and ensuing that the commit messages convey that idea, that the patches reflect the idea, that everything is convayed, and it isn't obviously internally illogical. Like, why did this series have a giant block of #ifdef 0'd code with no explanation at all? That isn't checkpatch nitpicks, that is not meeting the minimum standard to convey an idea in an RFC. Jason
