Re: 463 kernel developers missing! - Kernel

This is a discussion on Re: 463 kernel developers missing! - Kernel ; On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 08:01:09AM +1000, James Morris wrote: > On Mon, 28 Jul 2008, Randy Dunlap wrote: > > > It would be Good if we could give more value to Reviewed-by: tag lines also... > > ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 82

Thread: Re: 463 kernel developers missing!

  1. Re: 463 kernel developers missing!

    On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 08:01:09AM +1000, James Morris wrote:
    > On Mon, 28 Jul 2008, Randy Dunlap wrote:
    >
    > > It would be Good if we could give more value to Reviewed-by: tag lines also...
    > >
    > > IOW, we "need" to do this.

    >
    > Also, Tested-by:, to encourage and recognize people who may not be
    > confident in reviewing code to at least test it, which is immensely
    > useful if done thoughtfully.
    >
    > "Measuring programming progress by lines of code is like measuring
    > aircraft building progress by weight."
    >
    > If you know who said this, award yourself a cookie :-)
    >

    Or just filter on "-by:", which seems to get anything relevant, including
    people that shamelessly make up their own tags. In order for something to
    be converted from a Cc: to a *-by: requires manual effort at least, which
    ought to be sufficient for recognition.

    If someone was really bored they could probably make a table of tags with
    various points to try and balance things slightly more objectively.
    Though it seems we now at least have totally different metrics on LWN,
    for the kernel summit selection process, and Jon's new script. ;-)

    Trying to map all of the names seems pretty pointless though, most
    regular contributors contribute in a fairly consistent and sane manner,
    with the odd mismatch or typo here or there. It might make sense for
    anyone where there's a significant difference, but those are going to be
    corner cases.
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  2. Re: 463 kernel developers missing!

    On 7/28/08, Paul Mundt wrote:
    > On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 08:01:09AM +1000, James Morris wrote:
    > > On Mon, 28 Jul 2008, Randy Dunlap wrote:
    > >
    > > > It would be Good if we could give more value to Reviewed-by: tag lines also...
    > > >
    > > > IOW, we "need" to do this.

    > >
    > > Also, Tested-by:, to encourage and recognize people who may not be
    > > confident in reviewing code to at least test it, which is immensely
    > > useful if done thoughtfully.
    > >
    > > "Measuring programming progress by lines of code is like measuring
    > > aircraft building progress by weight."
    > >
    > > If you know who said this, award yourself a cookie :-)
    > >

    >
    > Or just filter on "-by:", which seems to get anything relevant, including
    > people that shamelessly make up their own tags. In order for something to
    > be converted from a Cc: to a *-by: requires manual effort at least, which
    > ought to be sufficient for recognition.
    >
    > If someone was really bored they could probably make a table of tags with
    > various points to try and balance things slightly more objectively.
    > Though it seems we now at least have totally different metrics on LWN,
    > for the kernel summit selection process, and Jon's new script. ;-)
    >
    > Trying to map all of the names seems pretty pointless though, most
    > regular contributors contribute in a fairly consistent and sane manner,
    > with the odd mismatch or typo here or there. It might make sense for
    > anyone where there's a significant difference, but those are going to be
    > corner cases.


    12% of the name/email pairs are messed up. It's not all simple typos.
    There is significant mangling of non ASCII charsets by people's tools
    in the maintainer's chain of processing. Half of the time I don't
    believe what the author is submitting is what is ending up in the log
    due to mangling. It's a larger source of noise than typos.

    All of these variations on email names are in the log. Humans can
    identify these problems, it is much harder for a machine.

    For example, where are these backslashes coming from?
    Auke-Jan H Kok
    Auke-Jan H Kok
    Auke-Jan H Kok
    Auke-Jan H Kok
    Auke-Jan H Kok

    Are the tools case sensitive or insensitive on email addresses? Some
    are are some aren't, so I need these cases...
    Al Viro
    Al Viro
    Al Viro

    Another problem is internal machine names...
    David S. Miller
    David S. Miller
    David S. Miller
    David S. Miller
    David S. Miller
    David S. Miller
    David S. Miller
    David S. Miller

    Or varying the email name...
    Alexey Starikovskiy
    Alexey Starikovskiy
    Alexey Starikovskiy

    Why do these all end in (none)?
    Craig Hughes
    Dave Neuer
    David Brownell
    David Woodhouse
    Deepak Saxena
    Enrico Scholz

    --
    Jon Smirl
    jonsmirl@gmail.com
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  3. Re: 463 kernel developers missing!

    On 29-07-08 02:14, Jon Smirl wrote:

    > Why do these all end in (none)?
    > Craig Hughes
    > Dave Neuer
    > David Brownell
    > David Woodhouse
    > Deepak Saxena
    > Enrico Scholz


    Because rmk rewrites addresses to comply with privacy laws. Another good
    example of why this nonsense of yours is exactly that.

    I checked and am personally in there three times, once even without any
    valid email address listed. And any time there's anything other than my
    gmail address in some submission it at least recently means that someone
    _else_ took my from: address and stuck it on there and while I don't
    terribly mind that generally, I find it really annoying to see even
    those mistakes harvested into your hugely google-accessible resource.

    This is just yet another example of the senseless robotic crap people
    people just insist is "needed" and "valueable", but which is neither.

    Nonsense it is.

    Rene.
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  4. Re: 463 kernel developers missing!

    On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 02:29:01AM +0200, Rene Herman wrote:
    > On 29-07-08 02:14, Jon Smirl wrote:
    >
    > >Why do these all end in (none)?
    > >Craig Hughes
    > >Dave Neuer
    > >David Brownell
    > >David Woodhouse
    > >Deepak Saxena
    > >Enrico Scholz

    >
    > This is just yet another example of the senseless robotic crap people
    > people just insist is "needed" and "valueable", but which is neither.
    >

    Speaking of which, lk-changelog did the same sort of thing back in the BK
    days, which was at least useful for generating a pretty short log.
    Perhaps it makes more sense to start from that if someone really wants to
    waste their time on this. I'm still not sure what the point is though.
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  5. Re: 463 kernel developers missing!

    On 7/28/08, Rene Herman wrote:
    > On 29-07-08 02:14, Jon Smirl wrote:
    >
    >
    > > Why do these all end in (none)?
    > > Craig Hughes
    > > Dave Neuer
    > > David Brownell
    > > David Woodhouse
    > > Deepak Saxena
    > > Enrico Scholz
    > >

    >
    > Because rmk rewrites addresses to comply with privacy laws. Another good
    > example of why this nonsense of yours is exactly that.
    >
    > I checked and am personally in there three times, once even without any
    > valid email address listed. And any time there's anything other than my
    > gmail address in some submission it at least recently means that someone
    > _else_ took my from: address and stuck it on there and while I don't
    > terribly mind that generally, I find it really annoying to see even those
    > mistakes harvested into your hugely google-accessible resource.


    The emails in the list are extracted from the commit log. I did not
    touch the emails. If your email is in there wrong it is in a log
    message wrong. That doesn't necessarily mean you are the person who
    put it into the log wrong, patches can get mangled when being passed
    along the maintainer chain. The point of this file is to turn the
    mistake back into something useful. Think of these are reverse
    mappings, they convert errors back to usable names.

    As for privacy, if you don't want your email address in a file like
    this don't put it into a GPL'd public project. Generate a random name
    and email for each patch you submit. Of course I'm having trouble with
    a Signed-off-by: that can't be turned back into a person.
    Signed-off-by is there to track the responsibility chain for a patch
    and if the chain has been obfuscated what good is it?

    > This is just yet another example of the senseless robotic crap people
    > people just insist is "needed" and "valueable", but which is neither.
    >
    > Nonsense it is.
    >
    > Rene.
    >



    --
    Jon Smirl
    jonsmirl@gmail.com
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  6. Re: 463 kernel developers missing!

    On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 03:00:13PM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:

    > Other people aren't perfect, I've found over 1,000 typos in the those
    > names and emails. We need a validation mechanism.


    Who's "we", luser, and why would I possibly give a damn for your needs?
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  7. Re: 463 kernel developers missing!

    On 7/28/08, Al Viro wrote:
    > On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 03:00:13PM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:
    >
    >
    > > Other people aren't perfect, I've found over 1,000 typos in the those
    > > names and emails. We need a validation mechanism.

    >
    > Who's "we", luser, and why would I possibly give a damn for your needs?


    Let's drop the whole Sign-off-by mechanism. If we can't be bothered to
    clean up the junk in Signed-off-by why should we bother recording
    them? Sign every patch Mickey Mouse, it has the same effect.

    --
    Jon Smirl
    jonsmirl@gmail.com
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  8. Re: 463 kernel developers missing!

    On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 09:25:39PM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:
    > On 7/28/08, Al Viro wrote:
    > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 03:00:13PM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > > > Other people aren't perfect, I've found over 1,000 typos in the those
    > > > names and emails. We need a validation mechanism.

    > >
    > > Who's "we", luser, and why would I possibly give a damn for your needs?

    >
    > Let's drop the whole Sign-off-by mechanism. If we can't be bothered to
    > clean up the junk in Signed-off-by why should we bother recording
    > them? Sign every patch Mickey Mouse, it has the same effect.


    That still doesn't answer either of my questions. As for your question, the
    point is to have them good enough to make an individual changeset feasible
    to track.
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  9. Re: 463 kernel developers missing!

    On 7/28/08, Al Viro wrote:
    > On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 09:25:39PM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:
    > > On 7/28/08, Al Viro wrote:
    > > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 03:00:13PM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > > Other people aren't perfect, I've found over 1,000 typos in the those
    > > > > names and emails. We need a validation mechanism.
    > > >
    > > > Who's "we", luser, and why would I possibly give a damn for your needs?

    > >
    > > Let's drop the whole Sign-off-by mechanism. If we can't be bothered to
    > > clean up the junk in Signed-off-by why should we bother recording
    > > them? Sign every patch Mickey Mouse, it has the same effect.

    >
    > That still doesn't answer either of my questions. As for your question, the
    > point is to have them good enough to make an individual changeset feasible
    > to track.


    The file lets you convert the mess that exists in the log file xx-by:
    fields back into something reasonable. The messed up email addresses
    are verbatim extracted from the log. There is one entry in the file
    for each email address that appears in the log. The real names have
    been fixed by script and hand to correspond a real name with the
    extracted emails.

    Now we will differ on the definition of feasible and whether we should
    work to prevent more messed up emails/names from getting into the log.
    That's the central question here, how much are you allowed to
    obfuscate (on purpose or accidentally) your identity in an xx-by?

    I should also point out that external information (Google) was needed
    to identify several hundred names, there was insufficient information
    in the log or kernel source. If we have to reconstruct this mapping
    ten years from now for some random lawsuit, the external information
    may not be there.

    --
    Jon Smirl
    jonsmirl@gmail.com
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  10. Re: 463 kernel developers missing!

    On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:01:06PM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:
    > I should also point out that external information (Google) was needed
    > to identify several hundred names, there was insufficient information
    > in the log or kernel source. If we have to reconstruct this mapping
    > ten years from now for some random lawsuit, the external information
    > may not be there.


    Jon,

    The reality is ten years from now, many e-mail addresses won't
    be accurate anyway. We will have to track people down by hand, if it
    ever comes down to that. The signed-off-by needs to be enough so we
    can track down someone (very likely only a few set of people); via a
    manual method is quite acceptable. I don't think it is really
    necessary to try force fit the signed-off-by just so we can collect
    better mode.

    It should also be noted that the Developer's Certification of
    Origin 1.1 has laguage that was designed to make it legal to collect
    the DCO lines even in the European Union. So what rmk is doing is
    strictly speaking not necessary.

    - Ted
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  11. Re: 463 kernel developers missing!

    On 7/28/08, Theodore Tso wrote:
    > On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:01:06PM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:
    > > I should also point out that external information (Google) was needed
    > > to identify several hundred names, there was insufficient information
    > > in the log or kernel source. If we have to reconstruct this mapping
    > > ten years from now for some random lawsuit, the external information
    > > may not be there.

    >
    >
    > Jon,
    >
    > The reality is ten years from now, many e-mail addresses won't
    > be accurate anyway. We will have to track people down by hand, if it
    > ever comes down to that. The signed-off-by needs to be enough so we
    > can track down someone (very likely only a few set of people); via a
    > manual method is quite acceptable. I don't think it is really
    > necessary to try force fit the signed-off-by just so we can collect
    > better mode.


    The kernel already has a mailmap file, but it is not complete. So I
    should just take this work that makes the mailmap file a lot better
    and throw it away? The policy is that the log file should be messed up
    enough so that a computer can't process it and that a human can
    recover it only with several day's effort? That's a really hard line
    to define and we'll probably lose the identity of a bunch of
    contributors. I'll follow up with a patch that deletes the current
    ..mailmap

    --
    Jon Smirl
    jonsmirl@gmail.com
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  12. Re: 463 kernel developers missing!

    On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 12:13:37AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
    > Personally, I have no objection to the mailmap file as it's on the
    > whole an improvement; if it's been automatically generated and it
    > falsely maps multiple people to a single person, that would be highly
    > unfortunate, but maybe it fixes more problems than it creates.


    Typo correction. The first part of that sentence should read:

    "Personally, I have no objection to the mailmap file IF on the
    whole it's an improvement...."

    > I think the part most people are seriously objecting to is that the
    > supposition that Linus and some of his top lieutenants should be
    > enforcing some arbitrary rule that rejects commits if they come from
    > addresses outside of your .mailmap file (unless they first send a
    > patch to add their e-mail address to the .mailmap file), in some kind
    > of misguided attempt to enforce validation, which apparently the main
    > justification for which is so that you and others can runs some
    > statistical analysis, of which there seems to be some dispute whether
    > or not encouraging people to compete to get into the top 20
    > signed-off-by by splitting up commits into 100 different micro-patches
    > should be considered a desirable side effect of said statistical
    > analysis.
    >
    > As I said earlier, the moment you started advocating enforcing
    > validation, you may have started to confuse which is the tail and
    > which is the dog. People should be supplying patches to improve the
    > kernel; not to provide accurate fodder for statistical analysis.
    >
    > - Ted

    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  13. Re: 463 kernel developers missing!

    On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 11:23:31PM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:
    > The kernel already has a mailmap file, but it is not complete. So I
    > should just take this work that makes the mailmap file a lot better
    > and throw it away? The policy is that the log file should be messed up
    > enough so that a computer can't process it and that a human can
    > recover it only with several day's effort? That's a really hard line
    > to define and we'll probably lose the identity of a bunch of
    > contributors. I'll follow up with a patch that deletes the current
    > .mailmap


    Personally, I have no objection to the mailmap file as it's on the
    whole an improvement; if it's been automatically generated and it
    falsely maps multiple people to a single person, that would be highly
    unfortunate, but maybe it fixes more problems than it creates.

    I think the part most people are seriously objecting to is that the
    supposition that Linus and some of his top lieutenants should be
    enforcing some arbitrary rule that rejects commits if they come from
    addresses outside of your .mailmap file (unless they first send a
    patch to add their e-mail address to the .mailmap file), in some kind
    of misguided attempt to enforce validation, which apparently the main
    justification for which is so that you and others can runs some
    statistical analysis, of which there seems to be some dispute whether
    or not encouraging people to compete to get into the top 20
    signed-off-by by splitting up commits into 100 different micro-patches
    should be considered a desirable side effect of said statistical
    analysis.

    As I said earlier, the moment you started advocating enforcing
    validation, you may have started to confuse which is the tail and
    which is the dog. People should be supplying patches to improve the
    kernel; not to provide accurate fodder for statistical analysis.

    - Ted
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  14. Re: 463 kernel developers missing!

    On 7/29/08, Theodore Tso wrote:
    > On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 11:23:31PM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:
    > > The kernel already has a mailmap file, but it is not complete. So I
    > > should just take this work that makes the mailmap file a lot better
    > > and throw it away? The policy is that the log file should be messed up
    > > enough so that a computer can't process it and that a human can
    > > recover it only with several day's effort? That's a really hard line
    > > to define and we'll probably lose the identity of a bunch of
    > > contributors. I'll follow up with a patch that deletes the current
    > > .mailmap

    >
    >
    > Personally, I have no objection to the mailmap file as it's on the
    > whole an improvement; if it's been automatically generated and it
    > falsely maps multiple people to a single person, that would be highly
    > unfortunate, but maybe it fixes more problems than it creates.


    The mapping multiple people to a single person problem was always
    there, the new mailmap file doesn't alter it. There simply isn't
    enough information in the kernel source to tell if there are two or
    one Mark Browns. The file would need to be extended to encode more
    information.

    Mark Brown
    Mark Brown

    If the Marks want to separate themselves they will need to alter the
    mailmap. With the new mailmap this is easily done. With the old one
    you would have need to identify all of the aliases first.

    It's the higher level tools that are combining these into a single person.

    > I think the part most people are seriously objecting to is that the
    > supposition that Linus and some of his top lieutenants should be
    > enforcing some arbitrary rule that rejects commits if they come from
    > addresses outside of your .mailmap file (unless they first send a
    > patch to add their e-mail address to the .mailmap file), in some kind
    > of misguided attempt to enforce validation, which apparently the main
    > justification for which is so that you and others can runs some
    > statistical analysis, of which there seems to be some dispute whether
    > or not encouraging people to compete to get into the top 20
    > signed-off-by by splitting up commits into 100 different micro-patches
    > should be considered a desirable side effect of said statistical
    > analysis.


    That whole thread was pointless, the scripts for doing validation
    don't exist. The stat tools are helpful in finding errors in the
    mailmap file. I never cared about the stat results, I already know who
    the top developers are. Let's drop the whole validation concept too
    since it is obviously upsetting people.

    There are two types of entries in the file. Ones that alter the names
    associated with an email and ones that don't. You could argue that the
    ones that don't alter the names aren't needed. They're in there to
    make maintenance on the file easier.

    Putting all emails in the file lets you do maintenance by extracting
    the complete list of emails from the log and then removing the ones
    already in the file. Now you only have to manually check these new
    emails. If the unchanged entries were removed from the file they'd get
    mixed in with the new emails. Each time you updated mailmap you'd have
    a couple thousand emails to check.

    Putting the unchanged entries in the file also makes it very easy for
    people who want to alter their name entry. Just edit the mailmap file.
    Everything is there and sorted by name. Change the name for all of
    your aliases to whatever you want. Just make sure the names are all
    identical on the aliases.

    > As I said earlier, the moment you started advocating enforcing
    > validation, you may have started to confuse which is the tail and
    > which is the dog. People should be supplying patches to improve the
    > kernel; not to provide accurate fodder for statistical analysis.


    These addresses have more purposes than statistical analysis. They
    also record the responsibility chain of who submitted the patch. It
    seems prudent to me that we should make some effort to attempt to keep
    that chain in a reasonably clean state.

    I believe that people can get their name/email right in a patch 99% of
    the time. The bulk of the 12% error rate appears to be coming from
    maintainer tools mangling the patches and exposed internal mail server
    names. The real message is that there are some tools that need to be
    fixed.

    --
    Jon Smirl
    jonsmirl@gmail.com
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  15. Re: 463 kernel developers missing!

    On Tuesday 29 July 2008 06:46, Dave Jones wrote:
    > On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 04:22:36PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
    > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 03:00:13PM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:
    > > > Other people aren't perfect, I've found over 1,000 typos in the those
    > > > names and emails. We need a validation mechanism.

    > >
    > > You keep using the word "need"; I do not think it means what you think
    > > it does. :-)
    > >
    > > Seriously, why is it so important? It's a nice to have, and I
    > > recognize that you've spent a bunch of time on it. But if the goal is
    > > to get better statistics, and in exchange we forcibly map all Mark
    > > Browns to one e-mail address, and/or force them to all adopt middle
    > > initials (what if there are two Dan Smith's that don't have middle
    > > initials) just for the convenience of your statistics gathering, I
    > > would gently suggest to you that you've forgotten which is the tail,
    > > and which is the dog.

    >
    > I'm beginning to question just how useful the continued measuring
    > of things like Signed-off-by's is. Last week at OLS, I overheard
    > a conversation where someone was talking about the "top 10" lists
    > that Greg has been talking about at various conferences.
    > The conversation went along the lines of "my manager really wants
    > to see us on that list, at any cost".
    > Whilst the niave may think 'more patches == more better', this isn't
    > necessarily the case given we have nowhere near enough review bandwidth
    > *now*


    This is one way of looking at "the problem". The other way to look at
    it is that things are merged too quickly / without enough review, etc.

    That is the problem kernel maintainers can actually do something about.
    Or, they can just whine about "not enough review bandwidth".

    There has been this complaining from lots of people about not enough
    review bandwidth for quite a few years now. So I doubt it is going to
    magically get better by making more noise.

    Consider that there is probably virtually limitless amount of crap that
    people want to try to merge, so there is always going to be a lack of
    review bandwidth if the aim is to merge as much as we possibly can as
    fast as we can.

    The answer is to not make the problem worse by merging stuff faster
    than can be reviewed. When that happens, developers and companies
    should eventually assign a higher value to patch review.
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  16. Re: 463 kernel developers missing!

    On 29-07-08 02:50, Jon Smirl wrote:

    >>> Why do these all end in (none)?
    >>> Craig Hughes
    >>> Dave Neuer
    >>> David Brownell
    >>> David Woodhouse
    >>> Deepak Saxena
    >>> Enrico Scholz
    >>>

    >> Because rmk rewrites addresses to comply with privacy laws. Another good
    >> example of why this nonsense of yours is exactly that.
    >>
    >> I checked and am personally in there three times, once even without any
    >> valid email address listed. And any time there's anything other than my
    >> gmail address in some submission it at least recently means that someone
    >> _else_ took my from: address and stuck it on there and while I don't
    >> terribly mind that generally, I find it really annoying to see even those
    >> mistakes harvested into your hugely google-accessible resource.


    [ .. ]

    > As for privacy, if you don't want your email address in a file like
    > this don't put it into a GPL'd public project.


    Like I told you, I don't. Others do. And while that's not a huge issue
    in itself, you harvesting it into your nicely formatted google and
    spam-base MAKES it an issue. Just stop this crap. Be away.

    Rene.
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  17. Re: 463 kernel developers missing!

    On 7/29/08, Rene Herman wrote:
    > On 29-07-08 02:50, Jon Smirl wrote:
    >
    >
    > >
    > > >
    > > > > Why do these all end in (none)?
    > > > > Craig Hughes
    > > > > Dave Neuer
    > > > > David Brownell
    > > > > David Woodhouse
    > > > > Deepak Saxena
    > > > > Enrico Scholz
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > Because rmk rewrites addresses to comply with privacy laws. Another

    > good
    > > > example of why this nonsense of yours is exactly that.
    > > >
    > > > I checked and am personally in there three times, once even without any
    > > > valid email address listed. And any time there's anything other than my
    > > > gmail address in some submission it at least recently means that someone
    > > > _else_ took my from: address and stuck it on there and while I don't
    > > > terribly mind that generally, I find it really annoying to see even

    > those
    > > > mistakes harvested into your hugely google-accessible resource.
    > > >

    > >

    >
    > [ .. ]
    >
    >
    > > As for privacy, if you don't want your email address in a file like
    > > this don't put it into a GPL'd public project.
    > >

    >
    > Like I told you, I don't. Others do. And while that's not a huge issue in
    > itself, you harvesting it into your nicely formatted google and spam-base
    > MAKES it an issue. Just stop this crap. Be away.


    Google got the list the second it was mailed on LKML. Why haven't you
    told Google to remove the 1,054 pages that contain your email?

    http://www.google.com/support/webmas...08&topic=13511

    If you really want to spam kernel developers there is a much easier
    way, just send the message to LKML.


    --
    Jon Smirl
    jonsmirl@gmail.com
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  18. Re: 463 kernel developers missing!

    Hi Jon,

    On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Jon Smirl wrote:
    >> Like I told you, I don't. Others do. And while that's not a huge issue in
    >> itself, you harvesting it into your nicely formatted google and spam-base
    >> MAKES it an issue. Just stop this crap. Be away.

    >
    > Google got the list the second it was mailed on LKML. Why haven't you
    > told Google to remove the 1,054 pages that contain your email?
    >
    > http://www.google.com/support/webmas...08&topic=13511
    >
    > If you really want to spam kernel developers there is a much easier
    > way, just send the message to LKML.


    Why does any of this matter? Rene asked you to drop his email from
    your list and refusing to do so is somewhat rude, isn't it?

    Pekka
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  19. Re: 463 kernel developers missing!

    On 7/29/08, Pekka Enberg wrote:
    > Hi Jon,
    >
    >
    > On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Jon Smirl wrote:
    > >> Like I told you, I don't. Others do. And while that's not a huge issue in
    > >> itself, you harvesting it into your nicely formatted google and spam-base
    > >> MAKES it an issue. Just stop this crap. Be away.

    > >
    > > Google got the list the second it was mailed on LKML. Why haven't you
    > > told Google to remove the 1,054 pages that contain your email?
    > >
    > > http://www.google.com/support/webmas...08&topic=13511
    > >
    > > If you really want to spam kernel developers there is a much easier
    > > way, just send the message to LKML.

    >
    >
    > Why does any of this matter? Rene asked you to drop his email from
    > your list and refusing to do so is somewhat rude, isn't it?


    Rene used his email in the immutable log of a public GPL'd project.
    It has become part of the public domain and can't be removed. So new
    users of the log are supposed to start editing history to remove
    actions from the past?

    If you want your email kept private don't use it to submit patches to
    a GPL'd project.

    --
    Jon Smirl
    jonsmirl@gmail.com
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  20. Re: 463 kernel developers missing!

    On 29-07-08 15:44, Jon Smirl wrote:

    > Google got the list the second it was mailed on LKML. Why haven't you
    > told Google to remove the 1,054 pages that contain your email?
    >
    > http://www.google.com/support/webmas...08&topic=13511
    >
    > If you really want to spam kernel developers there is a much easier
    > way, just send the message to LKML.


    Right, so you say that google got it the first time you ****ed it up.
    How exactly do you consider that to be a reason for continuing to ****
    it up and putting it in few hundred nicely fully indexed linux kernel
    trees out there on the web making the **** up rank at number 1 in the
    results?

    Now fortunately, from the discussion it seems that most sensible people
    will be ignoring you anyway so I guess I can and should stop bothering
    with this but please...

    That which is not white is not black and my keyaccess.nl address being
    public already anyway is NOT the same as it being veryveryvery public.

    Rene.
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast