From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934354AbYD3Wfo (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:35:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1760478AbYD3Wfb (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:35:31 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:52292 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756323AbYD3Wfa (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:35:30 -0400 Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 00:35:09 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: David Miller Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, rjw@sisk.pl, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jirislaby@gmail.com, Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: Slow DOWN, please!!! Message-ID: <20080430223509.GA31547@elte.hu> References: <20080430131537.1f7a0914.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080430135405.ddc42075.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080430.142137.236846072.davem@davemloft.net> <20080430221936.GA27292@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080430221936.GA27292@elte.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Ingo Molnar wrote: > What we need is not 'negative reinforcement'. That is just nasty, open > warfare between isolated parties, expressed in a politically correct > way. in more detail: any "negative reinforcement" should be on the _technical_ level, i.e. when changes are handled - not at the broad tree level. Sure, there are exceptions, etc. - but by the time stuff goes upstream it's too late and we've got to fix stuff instead of trying to push back on each other. by earlier integration (= linux-next) we can do the pushback much earlier, in a much more granular, much more technical in a much less personal way: "hey Ingo, your new sched-dizzy-blah patch broke stuff here, zap it" or "hey Dave, that socket-foo rewrite just broke things here, zap it". git-revert _kind of_ makes that possible too, but people still feel too personal about reverts - they take it as intrusion into their subsystem and regard it as an attack against their competence as a maintainer. and this is all so typical btw.: the most effective measure against human warfare is for people to see each other and to talk to each other. [ That's one reason why i am so worried about mailing list isolation. People get more distant, they mean less to each other, work less with each other => Linux suffers. I do accept that for some people lkml is simply too noisy - but i think the cure is worse than the disease. ] Ingo