From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: xerofoify@gmail.com (Nick Krause) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2014 16:20:15 -0400 Subject: Bad Patches and Issues with other devolopers In-Reply-To: <12636.1407268471@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <12636.1407268471@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: To: kernelnewbies@lists.kernelnewbies.org List-Id: kernelnewbies.lists.kernelnewbies.org On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 3:54 PM, wrote: > On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 13:42:58 -0400, Nick Krause said: >> I have sent out just ten bad patches and the developers seem very >> annoyed with me and > > Let's face it - if you've sent ten bad patches in a row without getting > one right, you're doing something wrong. And although total noob coders > scale very well (there seems to be a never-ending supply of them), maintainers > don't scale well at all - and they have a *huge* workload to review a lot of > patches every release cycle. > > I can't think of a single maintainer that isn't willing to provide advice. > > I also can't think of a single maintainer who *doesn't* get torqued off > massively when V2 of a patch, or another patch, comes in from the same > person and it's obvious the advice wasn't listened to. They don't have > time for that sort of foolishness. > >> think I am trolling. If someone on this list can find a way for me to >> improve my relationship >> with them and let me continue my work here that would be great. > > First and foremost, when senior kernel developers give you specific advice, > *listen to it*. If somebody like Ted T'so tells you that it's unacceptable to > send patches that aren't compile-tested, *you should never be sending another > patch that didn't compile clean*. Period. End Of Discussion. > > In fact, you should strive higher - don't submit a patch unless you are > (a) booted onto the patched kernel, (b) verify it by checking uname -r, and > (c) have done testing that your patch actually fixed the issue you were > patching without breaking anything. > > Running around willy-nilly submitting patches all over the tree doesn't > inspire confidence in your patches - especially after you've hit multiple > subsystems and been told "This is wrong and you obviously (a) don't understand > the subsystem and (b) didn't bother figuring it out". > > Also, you may want to sit down for a few days, and think long and hard > about *why* you're so desperate to submit kernel patches. Do you have a > good reason to devote the time? Or is it just ego-stroking? (Personally, > I've been around since the 2.5.47 or so kernel - and I'm only doing it > because I have a Dell laptop on my desk and a quarter acre of servers across > the hall, and lots of users on our campus - and every good bug report I file > against linux-next means a crappy bug report from a user after the release > escapes) > I want to help and improve the code plus get a code doing kernel development. I understand now and am not going to waste time anymore, I am going to make sure all my patches are tested correctly and to the best of my ability first. Regards NIck