linux-kernel - Re: CFD: linux-wanking@...r.kernel.org (was [PATCH] Standard indentation of arguments)

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:	Wed, 21 May 2008 10:41:54 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: CFD: linux-wanking@...r.kernel.org (was [PATCH] Standard
	indentation of arguments)

On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 01:50:37AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 09:34:13 +0100 Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> 
> > This is a call for discussion for new maillist on vger.
> > 
> > List name: linux-wanking@...r.kernel.org
> 
> Oh, what a marvellous way to encourage new contributors that was. Thank
> you so much.
> 
> For the record: Al speaks only for himself and a lack of expressed
> disagrement from others should not be taken as agreement.

Of course I speak for myself.  And I am absolutely open about my belief
that such _contribution_s_ need to be discouraged.  Actively.

Hell, a month ago I mentioned right-justifying text in comments as
"we'll never reach _that_" kind of pointless idiocy.  And there we
are, much closer to that than I ever expected.

I have nothing against contributors.  I *DO* have a lot against a very
specific class of contributions.  Exactly because they actively prevent
people from moving on to saner stuff.  Rule of the thumb: if a pointless
activity can be carried indefinitely long and creates an impression of
busy doing something, it ought to be discouraged.

Basically, something one could do as infinitely stretchable time-filler
when one _really_ doesn't feel like doing anything that might require
thinking.  Think of this situations like "I need to write the next
part of paper, but I just can't get around to starting it; anything
but that - let's rearrange the order of references, rearrange the
pencils, whatever".

And that is where I believe Ingo is wrong - dropping the level of acceptable
pointlessness of patches does *not* encourage meaningful contributions; it
discourages them.  Ladder doesn't become more accessible if you extend it
down into swamp; there's a reasonable starting level from which one _does_
go up.  It's impossible to define formally, but it's quite real and I'm
very afraid that it's rapidly getting harder to find.  Harder for newbies.

> Sheesh

Sheesh, indeed.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/