On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 06:46:04PM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > Neil, > > I disagree with your framing, and thus your analysis, and thus your > proposed solution. > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 07:26:06AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > > If, for example, Linus or Andrew said "if you cannot work with any given > > maintainer, I will consider your patch directly, but you need to point > > to where you tried, and why you failed - or to where the promise is > > inadequate". > > > > Currently if a maintainer is rude to you, there is no where else that > > you can go and *that* is why it hurts. It isn't the abuse so much as > > the powerlessness associated with it. If you can (metaphorically) say > > to that maintainer "I don't care about your toilet mouth, you've just > > given me the right to take my petition to caesar" - then the emotional > > response will be quite different to pain. > > No. That's just not how things work. Patches don't get rejected > because maintainers are being rude. Patches don't get accepted > because they are not of a sufficiently high technical quality.
I once sent a bugfix and instead of applying it, the maintainer insulted me and rejected it because the subject wasn't in imperative tense and because I said "NULL dereference" instead of "NULL pointer dereference." Ten years back there was a patch rejected because "F*** you, what do women know about programming?" I can't imagine it happening now, but I was so shocked by it at the time also... regards, dan carpenter
