From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754082AbYDNKhS (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Apr 2008 06:37:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751423AbYDNKhE (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Apr 2008 06:37:04 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:58371 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751507AbYDNKhD (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Apr 2008 06:37:03 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] OMFS filesystem version 3 From: David Woodhouse To: Andrew Morton Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Xavier Bestel , Alan Cox , Miklos Szeredi , me@bobcopeland.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20080414032232.bc36ba5b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <20080413080130.GA9622@infradead.org> <20080413012001.8d7967f4.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080413082815.GA20108@infradead.org> <1208121358.2700.4.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> <20080413154459.4b2f125d.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080413234920.63711ca7@core> <20080413161014.cb06964c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1208161859.3596.75.camel@skunk.anacadf.mentorg.com> <20080414014445.5b4a7b22.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080414090945.GA18494@infradead.org> <20080414022108.92ce9b1d.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1208167786.31695.34.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <20080414032232.bc36ba5b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 11:36:55 +0100 Message-Id: <1208169415.31695.51.camel@pmac.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.1 (2.22.1-1.fc9) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 03:22 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > Not so. There is a habit of treating corporate developers as somehow > inferior to the purer old-timers. I know - people have told me. Quite > often. I'm not sure I agree. There is a habit of treating people who post crap code as somehow inferior to the purer old-timers, certainly. And that's probably not such a good thing, but at least it helps to keep the signal:noise ratio down a little, overall. But except to the extent that there is a correlation between 'corporate developers' and 'people who post crap code', I wouldn't agree with your statement above. We have a lot of people working for large corporations who don't post crap code, and to whom Christoph almost never promotes an attitude of violence. Looking at Jon's 'who wrote 2.6.23' analysis, I see quite a lot of successful 'corporate' involvement. > And for various reasons, those people feel limited in their options > for standing up for themselves. Anyone trying to defend crap code _should_ be limited in their options, surely? And sometimes, 'corporate developers' do try to defend crap code, because they've made traditional corporate mistakes like developing it all in private and presenting it as a fait accomplis without proper a priori review, and/or haven't budgeted for the necessary time to fix it. -- dwmw2