Re: Clarification for general change acceptance

From	SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: Clarification for general change acceptance
Date	2017-05-12 10:30 +0200
Message-ID	<tGe7w-1Ju-7@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <tFYYN-ax-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <tFZia-ha-31@gated-at.bofh.it> <tGd1L-Y4-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <tGdl7-16h-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <tGdEu-1eG-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

> Developer reputation matters for somewhat controversial
> patches being applied as well as non-controversial and
> obviously correct patches being ignored.

I am aware that there are more factors involved.


> Your reputation means most all of your patches fall into
> the latter category.

I hope that this situation will evolve into directions which you would prefer more.


> You have produced many trivial patches

This is true.

I started my concrete contributions to Linux software modules with simple
source code search patterns.


> that have caused new defects.

A few unwanted programming mistakes just happened somehow.


> That is simply unacceptable.

Glitches are not desired as usual.



> Especially when you don't immediately fix the problems you cause.

I find my response times reasonable to some degree so far.

Remaining open issues can be clarified by a corresponding constructive
development dialogue, can't they?



> If you would stop producing the trivial and instead
> channel your efforts into actual bug fixing and logic
> corrections and not just style modifications with no
> code impact, your patch acceptance rate would increase.

I find your conclusion appropriate.

But I will come along source code places where I am going to update details
which are also trivial.


> I have given you many suggestions for actual structural
> improvements to kernel code.

I have got an other impression. There were a few occasions where advanced
change possibilities were proposed.


> You have ignored _all_ of them and I am unlikely to try
> to interact with you any longer until your wheat:chaff
> ratio changes.

Can the efforts for deleting questionable error messages around Linux memory
allocation functions improve this situation?

Regards,
Markus

Thread

[PATCH 2/4] vmbus: Delete an error message for a failed memory  allocation in vmbus_device_create() SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> - 2017-05-11 18:20 +0200
  Re: vmbus: Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation in  vmbus_device_create() SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> - 2017-05-11 18:40 +0200
    Re: vmbus: Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation  in vmbus_device_create() Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org> - 2017-05-11 18:50 +0200
  Re: [PATCH 2/4] vmbus: Delete an error message for a failed memory  allocation in vmbus_device_create() Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org> - 2017-05-11 18:40 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 2/4] vmbus: Delete an error message for a failed memory  allocation in vmbus_device_create() Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> - 2017-05-12 09:20 +0200
      Re: vmbus: Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation in  vmbus_device_create() SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> - 2017-05-12 09:40 +0200
        Re: vmbus: Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation  in vmbus_device_create() Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> - 2017-05-12 10:00 +0200
          Re: Clarification for general change acceptance SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> - 2017-05-12 10:30 +0200
            Re: Clarification for general change acceptance Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr> - 2017-05-12 10:40 +0200
              Re: Clarification for general change acceptance SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> - 2017-05-12 10:50 +0200

csiph-web