Conversation
kernellogger@fosstodon.org

Thorsten Leemhuis (acct. 1/4)

Argh. 🥴

I (and @torvalds iirc as well) tell everybody "a revert to fix a is nothing bad, it's often done to provide more time to fix the problem; once you did so, just resubmit the change."

And not I just found this in the 's documentation[1]:

'"[…] having a patch pulled as the result of a failure to fix a regression could well make it harder for you to get work merged in the future. […]"'

Argh. 🥴

[1] https://docs.kernel.org/process/6.Followthrough.html

3
0
1
kernellogger@fosstodon.org

Thorsten Leemhuis (acct. 1/4)

Reply to @kernellogger@fosstodon.org

2/ yes, I will submit a patch to address this.

1
0
1
benbe@social.chaotikum.org

BenBE

Reply to @kernellogger@fosstodon.org

@kernellogger I can understand the intention behind this and even if this was not in the documentation it's likely to be some "unwritten" rule.

As a developer you tend to remember who submitted shitty code and you'll opt to stay clear of their work in the future.

But I agree the wording there is somewhat unfortunate.

1
0
0
kernellogger@fosstodon.org

Thorsten Leemhuis (acct. 1/4)

Reply to @benbe@social.chaotikum.org

@benbe

Yeah, it is meant well, but badly phrased.

Reverting or "pulling" something is not the problem.

Not trying to fix the regression is the problem. And if you do that, then "make […] it harder for you to get work merged in the future. […]"' is appropriate.

0
0
1
epilys@chaos.social

Manos Pitsidianakis

Reply to @kernellogger@fosstodon.org

@kernellogger @torvalds

It brought to mind this bit by @torvalds about process docs

https://lore.kernel.org/ksummit/CAHk-=wjLShGxeGtjRGkjQni+VzWC0yrf34EP0AUn+_zU0u-WeQ@mail.gmail.com/

0
0
1
corbet

Jonathan Corbet

Reply to @kernellogger@fosstodon.org
@kernellogger @torvalds I am almost certainly the person who wrote those words. Yes, they could be improved... but note that the text talks about failing to *respond* to the regression, not the revert. That was surely the intent there, and I think it remains true.
0
2
5
About social.kernel.org

Terms of service

  1. Please do not use this service in violation of the Linux Kernel Code of Conduct. Doing so will result in your account suspension with the referral of the matter to the CoC committee.

  2. "Repeating"/"boosting" someone else's status on this platform will be treated as endorsement and will fall under rule #1.

  3. You are encouraged to use this platform to promote your work on the Linux Kernel, but there is no restriction on permitted topics (with the exception of anything covered by #1 above).

  4. There is no requirement to post in English, but it should be considered the primary language of communication on this platform.

Privacy notice

The admins of this service have access to all posted statuses. They aren't looking, but if it's something they shouldn't know about, then you should not post it on this platform.

Please see the Linux Foundation Privacy Policy, which applies to this platform as well.

Getting your own account

If you would like an account on this instance, please check that the following applies to you:

  • You are listed in MAINTAINERS or CREDITS

  • OR: You have a kernel.org account or email address

  • OR: You have a long and established history of involvement with the Linux Kernel

If the above is true and you agree with the Terms of Service and Privacy Notice listed above, please use these instructions to request an account: