Re: [PATCH v3 trivial 0/7] Miscellaneous Trivialities

From: Rob Landley
Date: Wed Aug 21 2013 - 07:30:22 EST

On 08/20/2013 10:32:02 PM, Michael Witten wrote:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 19:19:37 -0500, Rob Landley wrote:

> Hence asking if we really needed
> three separate commits to accomplish something that didn't actually
> need to be done in the first place.)
> ...
> Actually my objection is that it's not worth the churn in the commit logs.

Naturally, we don't NEED three separate commits! Squash all of them
into one commit if that's something worth hissing about.

Do you need help with the relevant commands?

The correct response to someone disagreeing you is to patronize them?

Query: did you notice the phrase "something that didn't actually need to be done in the first place"? You quoted it and everything, so I'm assuming you ignored it intentionally rather than simply not noticing.

Because you are the former and current maintainer of large and active
projects, I'd expect you to *appreciate* the value of taking in
fine-grained patches for REVIEW (even if you don't appreciate their
sum total).

I reviewed them. The result of that review is what you're objecting to.

The patches have been written in a way to *ease* the job of the
maintainer in understanding the changes.

My understanding is that they're pointless churn.

The fact that you find each
patch ludicrously trivial is a GREAT sign, especially considering
that I sent them mainly to the maintainer of... *TRIVIAL* changes.

1) Not everything trivial is worth doing.

2) "A maintainer's job is to say no." - Alan Cox

> But yeah, why would a guy listed in MAINTAINERS as caring about the
> Documentation directory pay attention to proposed changes to the
> Documentation directory? Madness. I'll butt out now...

Madness is thinking that it means something to have your name listed in
some file.

Huh. Oddly specific definition. Has anyone informed the psychiatric profession?

You are the maintainer when people send you patches and pull
from your repo---that is, when people *like* working with you. That's it.
A name in a file is simply a starting point for those contributors who
may not know any better.

I only brought it up becauase you were objecting to me butting my nose into your affairs.

Don't take "your" position for granted.

Obviously when someone disagrees with you, threatening to get them fired will immediately convince them of the virtue of your position. (I presume this is how you handle restaurants as well?)

You misunderstand the nature of the position: this is volunteer janitorial work. I don't get paid for it, and haven't even bothered to list the maintainership on my resume. (Programmers get paid more than tech writers.) I'd be pretty _happy_ to find somebody else willing to do a better job at it. (I'd also love somebody to start up kernel-traffic or the kernel podcast again, restart h-online, re-enable rsync support in kernel.org...) I have way too many demands on my time, but was _asked_ by the previous guy to take over when he didn't have time anymore. I've been trying to carve out more time to clean up the directory (in a librarian sort of way; didn't write the books but I can shelve them more neatly), but free time seems to be self-consuming these days...

None of this changes my opinion that your first three changes are pointless churn, a waste of time, and not worth merging. (Your indignant and self-important reaction to that evaluation _has_ changed my opinion of your technical judgement and likelihood of listening to you in the future, so that's something.)

Nothing stops one of the other maintainers from taking your patch over my objections. Most documentation goes in through other trees anyway, generally as part of series with code and documentation components. But _my_ evaluation remains "NAK".

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