• Lvxferre@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    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.

    • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      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.