linux-kernel - Re: [ATTEND] How to act on LKML (was: [ 00/19] 3.10.1-stable review)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:14:46 +1000
From:	NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
	Sarah Sharp <sarah.a.sharp@...ux.intel.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
	Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
	ksummit-2013-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Subject: Re: [ATTEND] How to act on LKML (was: [ 00/19] 3.10.1-stable
 review)

On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 20:17:30 -0400 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 16:15 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >  
> > One thing you should keep in mind in your discussion is what can happen
> > if people get too polite with each other.
> > 
> > I have seen this happen at two large companies I worked for. Early on, flames
> > are acceptable and expected as response to someone publishing bad code which
> > breaks everything for everyone. Then, at some point, it is not acceptable
> > anymore to flame, and one is expected to be polite and friendly at all times.
> > "Your code breaks the build for every platform. Would you please kindly
> > consider fixing it ?"
> > Result is that code quality suffers, to the point where images don't even
> > build anymore.
> > 
> > I hope the Linux kernel never gets into that stage. To avoid that,
> > I am willing to be cursed at by Linus if I am the responsible party.
> 
> Didn't Jim Zemlin show some research where there were two groups:
> 
>  One that did a bunch of brain storming where no idea was a bad idea
> 
>  The other required you to defend your idea while the others bashed it.
> 
> The results always showed that the second group not only did a better
> job, but also faster and more efficient.
> 
> I'm afraid if we worry too much about politeness, we will fall into that
> first group.
> 

Surely there is an enormous difference between being required to defend your
position against rational and forceful argument, and being required to defend
it against irrelevant name calling.

NeilBrown

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (829 bytes)