linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] README: cosmetic fixes

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]

Message-ID: <20160118154035.31455402@lwn.net>
Date:	Mon, 18 Jan 2016 15:40:35 -0700
From:	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To:	Diego Viola <diego.viola@...il.com>
Cc:	Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] README: cosmetic fixes

On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 17:53:02 -0200
Diego Viola <diego.viola@...il.com> wrote:

> The thing I'm unsure about is that the pull request contained trivial
> changes from others as well, and my patch was trivial, yes.
> 
> So why not include my changes with the other trivial changes as well?

I set aside when I raised my initial complaint, and it stayed set aside.

I'll consider it again, but I'm not very enthusiastic about applying
stylistic fixes.  We really don't need trivial patch wars over how many
exclamation points belong on a given sentence.

Diego, I'd like to ask you to sit back a bit and think about what you are
really trying to accomplish.  Maintainers are busy people, and you place a
demand on their time whenever you post a patch.  That time is available in
*very* limited quantities for patches that don't really make the kernel
better.  Please think a bit about why you're doing this, and how you might
direct your energy toward creating changes that maintainers actively want
to apply.  That will leave everybody better off than nagging people about
cosmetic changes.

Thanks,

jon