On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 10:44:47AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > I prefer such early releases to lkml _alot_ more than any private review > process. I released the CFS code about 6 hours after i thought "okay, > this looks pretty good" and i spent those final 6 hours on testing it > (making sure it doesnt blow up on your box, etc.), in the final 2 hours > i showed it to two folks i could reach on IRC (Arjan and Thomas) and on > various finishing touches. It doesnt get much faster than that and i > definitely didnt want to sit on it even one day longer because i very > much thought that Con and others should definitely see this work! > > And i very much credited (and still credit) Con for the whole fairness > angle: > > || i'd like to give credit to Con Kolivas for the general approach here: > || he has proven via RSDL/SD that 'fair scheduling' is possible and that > || it results in better desktop scheduling. Kudos Con! > > the 'design consultation' phase you are talking about is _NOW_! :) > > I got the v1 code out to Con, to Mike and to many others ASAP. That's > how you are able to comment on this thread and be part of the > development process to begin with, in a 'private consultation' setup > you'd not have had any opportunity to see _any_ of this. > > In the BSD space there seem to be more 'political' mechanisms for > development, but Linux is truly about doing things out in the open, and > doing it immediately.
I can't even begin to talk about how screwed up BSD development is. Maybe another time privately. Ok, Linux development and inclusiveness can be improved. I'm not trying to "call you out" (slang for accusing you with the sole intention to call you crazy in a highly confrontative manner). This is discussed publically here to bring this issue to light, open a communication channel as a means to resolve it. > Okay? ;-) It's cool. We're still getting to know each other professionally and it's okay to a certain degree to have a communication disconnect but only as long as it clears. Your productivity is amazing BTW. But here's the problem, there's this perception that NIH is the default mentality here in Linux. Con feels that this kind of action is intentional and has a malicious quality to it as means of "churn squating" sections of the kernel tree. The perception here is that there is that there is this expectation that sections of the Linux kernel are intentionally "churn squated" to prevent any other ideas from creeping in other than of the owner of that subsytem (VM, scheduling, etc...) because of lack of modularity in the kernel. This isn't an API question but a question possibly general code quality and how maintenance () of it can . This was predicted by folks and then this perception was *realized* when you wrote the equivalent kind of code that has technical overlap with SDL (this is just one dry example). To a person that is writing new code for Linux, having one of the old guards write equivalent code to that of a newcomer has the effect of displacing that person both with regards to code and responsibility with that. When this happens over and over again and folks get annoyed by it, it starts seeming that Linux development seems elitist. I know this because I heard (read) Con's IRC chats all the time about these matters all of the time. This is not just his view but a view of other kernel folks that differing views as to. The closing talk at OLS 2006 was highly disturbing in many ways. It went "Christoph" is right everybody else is wrong which sends a highly negative message to new kernel developers that, say, don't work for RH directly or any of the other mainstream Linux companies. After a while, it starts seeming like this kind of behavior is completely intentional and that Linux is full of arrogant bastards. What I would have done here was to contact Peter Williams, Bill Irwin and Con about what your doing and reach a common concensus about how to create something that would be inclusive of all of their ideas. Discussions can technically heated but that's ok, the discussion is happening and it brings down the wall of this perception. Bill and Con are on oftc.net/#offtopic2. Riel is there as well as Peter Zijlstra. It might be very useful, it might not be. Folks are all stubborn about there ideas and hold on to them for dear life. Effective leaders can deconstruct this hostility and animosity. I don't claim to be one. Because of past hostility to something like schedplugin, the hostility and terseness of responses can be percieved simply as "I'm right, you're wrong" which is condescending. This effects discussion and outright destroys a constructive process if this happens continually since it reenforces that view of "You're an outsider, we don't care about you". Nobody is listening to each other at that point, folks get pissed. Then they think about "I'm going to NIH this person with patc X because he/she did the same here" which is dysfunctional. Oddly enough, sometimes you're the best person to get a new idea into the tree. What's not happening here is communication. That takes sensitivity, careful listening which is a difficult skill, and then understanding of the characters involved to unify creative energies. That's a very difficult thing to do for folks that are use to working solo. It take time to develop trust in those relationships so that a true collaboration can happen. I know that there is a lot of creativity in folks like Con and Bill. It would be wise to develop a dialog with them to see if they can offload some of your work for you (we all know you're really busy) yet have you be a key facilitator of their and your ideas. That's a really tough thing to do and it requires practice. Just imagine (assuming they can follow through) what could have positively happened if there collective knowledge was leveraged better. It's not all clear and rosy, but I think these people are more on your side that you might realized and it might be a good thing to discover that. This is tough because I know the personalities involved and I know kind of how people function and malfunction in this discussion on a personal basis. [We can continue privately. This not just about you but applicable to open source development in general] The tone of this email is intellectually critical (not ment as personality attack) and calm. If I'm otherwise, them I'm a bastard. :) bill - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
