Bjorn, I understand that now after reading your message. To be honest, I started out like this because I had no idea, where to start. If your willing to give me a place to start, that is of use I will be glad to help out. Over time, I hope we can work this out. Nick On 2014-12-09 04:24 AM, Bjørn Mork wrote: > Philipp Muhoray <philipp.muhoray@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Not that I have any say in this, but I feel like a ban should rather >> be justified by someone's behavior instead of incorrect patches. > > It's not a ban, it's a protective filter. Maintainers and reviewers are > limited resources. We should not waste them. > >> I >> guess most of us have send awful patches at some point, the question >> though is how we dealt with it. I'm not saying the ban should be >> lifted, I'm just saying we should communicate the right arguments for >> his ban (instead of blaming him for commit messages he didn't even >> write). > > If you look at what actually happened, you'll see a very good example of > why the filter is still required: The original patch was yet another > completely pointless fixme-comment deletion, without any real > explanation whatsoever in the commit message. And it wasn't even > properly formatted with a subsystem prefixed subject etc. So the > maintainer had to spend time trying to fix up the commit message and > figuring out why it was OK to delete those fixme comments. As has been > pointed out here, that explanation could still be incomplete. I guess > the maintainer didn't want to spend hours looking at something as > pointless as this. The problem is that he didn't realize that this > patch was a waste of time before spending time on it at all. > > Which is exactly why the maintainers should be protected against having > to look at stuff like this, if possible. And in this case it *is*. > There are exactly zero examples of valuable patches from that author. > If you look at the history of accepted patches, you will find that in > each and every case there is some reviewer or maintainer doing the > *real* work - figuring out that the patch is OK and explaining why. And > the result is still patches without any real value. They don't solve > any problem for anyone. They are the result of stupid and mindless > grepping for a specific word in comments. > > Yes, we have all wasted time for maintainers and reviewers by sending > them stuff we shouldn't have. That's part of the game. The problem in > this case is the massive distribution over an insane number of > subsystems in combination with the inability to learn anything at all. > Wasting one maintainer's time once is excusable. Wasting hundreds of > maintainer's time over and over again is absolutely not. It's > potentionally destructive to the whole project if it is allowed to > continue. > > This very thread is yet another example of the contentless noise from > this source, and I hate myself for having wasted your time having to > read this. Sorry about that. > > But I write it in the hope that you will understand that the filtering > is *not* about punishing anyone. It is about protecting or most valuable > resources. > > And if anyone still wonders: Requests for "ban removal" has no value to > the community, and are therefore the exact opposite of what's required > to have the filter removed. > > > Bjørn > > _______________________________________________ > Kernelnewbies mailing list > Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies > _______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
