You copied that function without understanding why it does what it does, and as a result your code is flawed & inefficient. This poor practice is a pattern I’ve noticed.
Less likely to be effective. There’s a good chance that the submitter won’t get the message, and that they’ll submit another pull request, five minutes later, with the exact same issue that made the first PR to be rejected. And again. Again. Again.
More insulting. Now you aren’t just saying “your code is garbage”; you’re saying “your code is garbage and you’re a fragile little thing that will break apart if handled incorrectly”.
As likely to create drama as the original verbiage, given that the drama is originated in human nature - we humans want to believe (even if outright false) that we’re “contributing”, even when we are not.
Thanks for the detailed response. We’ll disagree on this.
Points 3 & 1 seem to contradict each other a little bit. The modified verbiage obfuscates the message in a way which only impedes understanding aiding growth but not understanding evoking drama?
RE: #2, your entire response was very polite. You could’ve got the same point across by calling the approach I demonstrated stupid. FWIW, I didn’t feel coddled by your lack of disrespect.
Any psychologists running studies and concluding the most abrasive critiques are most effective? Any schools teaching the Linus method?
I didn’t call your approach stupid because I don’t think that it’s stupid, even if I disagree with it.
The modified verbiage obfuscates the message in a way which only impedes understanding aiding growth but not understanding evoking drama?
If the message wasn’t delivered, there’s a high chance of further interactions that might create drama in the future. The quote in the OP is an example of that - in the original context there’s an “AGAIN” that shows that it was not the first time that Steven Rostedt submitted a patch with the exact same issue.
So I believe that, even if you might get less drama now because the message wasn’t understood, you’ll end getting it later anyway.
Also, Torvalds’ message does promote growth, if read fully. Even with the “your code is garbage”, he’s still explaining:
which function should be used there, atomic64_add_return()
the purpose of get_next_ino() and other VSF functions
that Rostedt is addressing what Torvalds believe to be a “made up problem”
that Rostedt should read further info on the core functions, before using them
it’s just that the quote picks the spicy bit and leaves the boring carb behind.
Heaven help the community if “flawed & inefficient”, “poor practice…pattern” aren’t direct enough feedback! Linus’s style being an outlier suggests polite criticism is enough to make the world turn.
I think you could even simply replace capslock GARBAGE with capslock [FUNDAMENTALLY] FLAWED, leave the “AGAIN”, and it’d be OK if harsh.
Glad he did some teaching after the flaming in any case.
What’s your opinion on this alternative verbiage?
It will fall on deaf ears
It’s garbage.
My opinion is that it is:
Thanks for the detailed response. We’ll disagree on this.
Points 3 & 1 seem to contradict each other a little bit. The modified verbiage obfuscates the message in a way which only impedes understanding aiding growth but not understanding evoking drama?
RE: #2, your entire response was very polite. You could’ve got the same point across by calling the approach I demonstrated stupid. FWIW, I didn’t feel coddled by your lack of disrespect.
Any psychologists running studies and concluding the most abrasive critiques are most effective? Any schools teaching the Linus method?
I didn’t call your approach stupid because I don’t think that it’s stupid, even if I disagree with it.
If the message wasn’t delivered, there’s a high chance of further interactions that might create drama in the future. The quote in the OP is an example of that - in the original context there’s an “AGAIN” that shows that it was not the first time that Steven Rostedt submitted a patch with the exact same issue.
So I believe that, even if you might get less drama now because the message wasn’t understood, you’ll end getting it later anyway.
Also, Torvalds’ message does promote growth, if read fully. Even with the “your code is garbage”, he’s still explaining:
atomic64_add_return()get_next_ino()and other VSF functionsit’s just that the quote picks the spicy bit and leaves the boring carb behind.
Heaven help the community if “flawed & inefficient”, “poor practice…pattern” aren’t direct enough feedback! Linus’s style being an outlier suggests polite criticism is enough to make the world turn.
I think you could even simply replace capslock GARBAGE with capslock [FUNDAMENTALLY] FLAWED, leave the “AGAIN”, and it’d be OK if harsh.
Glad he did some teaching after the flaming in any case.