linux-kernel - Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] [ATTEND] How to act on LKML

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, 17 Jul 2013 13:05:27 -0500
From:	Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@...il.com>
To:	Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>
Cc:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Sarah Sharp <sarah.a.sharp@...ux.intel.com>,
	CAI Qian <caiqian@...hat.com>, David Lang <david@...g.hm>,
	ksummit-2013-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
	Olivier Galibert <galibert@...ox.com>,
	stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] [ATTEND] How to act on LKML

On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Stefano Stabellini
<stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Stefano Stabellini
>> <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> >> The last thing I want to do is to lower the quality of the kernel just
>> >> to get a wider range of developers.
>> >
>> > Can we stop bringing the quality of the code into the discussion?
>>
>> Can you please stop calling open communication abuse?
>
> Open communication is one thing, abuse is another, so I agree with you
> there.

You call it abuse, others don't.

>> First you have
>> to explain *why* it was improper in order to call it abuse, and in the
>> few examples that have been shown, it has been explained that the
>> behavior was justified (breaking the #1 rule by a lieutenant who
>> should know better).
>
> Abuse is never justified, I hope that's clear for everybody.
> Two wrongs don't make a right.
>
> So we are down to the definition of verbal abuse.
> The Oxford dictionary gives me:
>
> "speak to (someone) in an insulting and offensive way"

Here's another definition from Merriam Webster:

* language that condemns or vilifies usually unjustly, intemperately,
and angrily

That definition fits my idea of abuse. Linus was not unjust, so it's not abuse.

> For example I think that calling somebody a moron qualifies.

I don't, specially if the person is indeed being a moron.

>> > I think it's pretty clear that one doesn't need to be verbally abusive
>> > in order to stop bad code from getting into the kernel.
>>
>> You can think whatever you want, others have already shown that
>> changing the tone of the message in the examples would have changed
>> the desired effect.
>
> I disagree and it is certainly not the case in my experience.

Suit yourself.

If want you wanted was to voice your opinion, I think you have already
done that.

-- 
Felipe Contreras
--
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/