Return-Path: Received: from mail-out1.uio.no ([129.240.10.57]:37649 "EHLO mail-out1.uio.no" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752113AbZINNyf (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Sep 2009 09:54:35 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] nfs-utils: introduce new statd implementation (1st part) From: Trond Myklebust To: Chuck Lever Cc: NeilBrown , Jeff Layton , "J. Bruce Fields" , steved@redhat.com, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: References: <20090805143550.12866.8377.stgit@matisse.1015granger.net> <20090805144540.12866.22084.stgit@matisse.1015granger.net> <20090805174811.GB9944@fieldses.org> <20090805181545.GF9944@fieldses.org> <7330021D-C95A-463D-8D18-29453EF185BC@oracle.com> <1249507356.5428.11.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <1249515004.5428.34.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <20090909142945.755da393@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <1252521599.8722.53.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <20B7C2F0-E566-4292-91E9-41A3FA6C9D4C@oracle.com> <1252525327.8722.81.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <9eae93545189a6be6eebe0460b860fc7.squirrel@neil.brown.name> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 09:54:27 -0400 Message-Id: <1252936467.6866.54.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 10:09 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > On Sep 10, 2009, at 4:44 AM, NeilBrown wrote: > > I agree that combative mailing lists are a problem, but even there, I > > believe most of the aggression is more perceived than real, and that > > a graceful, humble, polite attitude can have a positive-feedback > > effect > > too. > > Years ago I believed that, but I have seen much evidence to the > contrary in this community. More often such an attitude is entirely > ignored, or treated as an invitation for abuse, especially by people > who have no interest in politeness. This kind of approach has no > effect on the leaders in the Linux community, who set an example of > extreme rudeness and belligerence. > > I've made an effort to stop arguing small points, and to make > observations and not argue. I still get e-mail full of "crap" this > and "bullshit" that and "NACK!" with little explanation. As you said above, you've been part of the community for years. It is not as if you haven't learned by now that a review might turn up issues that may give rise to a NACK, and that you need to be open to changing your code should this happen. If you need more information about what needs to be changed, then you know to ask. That hasn't been your approach in this case, though, and the responses you got were a direct consequence of that approach. You tried reversing the burden of proof as to why we should change an established interface instead of supplying adequate evidence justifying that change. When problems were pointed out to you (e.g. backward compatibility) your response was to deny they existed instead of proposing a change to your code. Finally, you tried changing the thread into a discussion about mean rude people obstructing you and failing to give you adequate guidance. The problems with the code remain, and you will need to change it in order to make it acceptable. The question I haven't seen you asking, and that you should have be asking from the very start is "what would be the minimal set of changes?". I'm quite willing to discuss that with you. Trond