181–190 of 288 posts
antirez via twitter: "Linus, I'm with you. Preserve your bastion of code quality as it's something rare and rapidly fading away." https://twitter.com/#!/antirez/status/201065752395124737
Because being strong minded about git commit message styles is the same thing as "code quality"?
antirez via twitter: "Linus, I'm with you. Preserve your bastion of code quality as it's something rare and rapidly fading away." https://twitter.com/#!/antirez/status/201065752395124737
Linux and code quality? I think you may be confused.
Considering Linus created git, if I were running github I'd tend to listen to whatever he had to say about it...
Devil's advocate: Considering GitHub popularized git, if I were in charge of git I'd listen to what the GitHub guys have to say about it.
Github wouldn't exist without Linus' git. I am really surprised they didn't take Linus' advice (reasonable, and no difficulty at all) in the first place.
I don't understand why people are upset with Linus's writing style. I considered what he wrote to be quite polite. He was merely stating his standards in terms of what he would and wouldn't accept (and github pull requests are on the "won't accept" list). He even explained why he wouldn't accept it. Furthermore, the patch was deficient in other ways. (a) it was missing the Signed-off-by: header, and (b) it should hav…
You're a moron." that people thought impolite. The comment he responded to appears to have been deleted, however, so I can make no judgement about how appropriate that was. I'd like to think it was completely appropriate -- I do agree with you overall that his other comments were reasonably polite.
I don't mean to be overly critical, but is it just me or are the 'godfathers' of computer science starting to sound like cranky old men? I mean....ok....this pull request being inferior to the way HE (the creator of Git) imagined it (or implemented it) is a bit petty imho. What's with the complaining? I am sure this is not the first time I have heard him complaining about something on Github or some other 'new techno…
No, it wasn't petty. It was useful, constructive criticism that the github developers appreciated.
It isn't just you, but I think you are being overly critical :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see where he is being unreasonable. He made git with his specific method of managing the Linux source repository in mind. Now someone wants him to ignore part of his tool for their connivence and he said no. He's not saying "we should all boycott GitHub because of it". He's not saying "they're idiots for doing this". He's saying 'The Linux project works one way, GitHub doesn't support that way, so we're not u…
> He's not saying "they're idiots for doing this". Well... "github is a total ghetto of crap" "make a real pull request, not the braindamaged crap that github does"
Deceitfully out of context.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I totally agree. The past few links on HN to comments by Tovald have been full of inflammatory, juvenile language. I'm sure the guy is intelligent and certainly deserves a place in CS hall-of-fame, but I think the way he carries himself in these forums has tarnished his reputation.
Note Torvalds is incredibly polite and articulate when speaking to the public or press. However in technical fora he carries an old-school 1992 usenet-style flamethrower. Its just the way most of those old *nix guys interact.
The point of technical fora is to have effective, high bandwidth discussions on technical matters.
If I want a hug, I can go get a real one from a real live human being - and I'll interact with them in an appropriate way for that context, too.
The man wrote git for use on the Linux kernel. Trying to argue with him about how to use git with respect to your tiny patch to the Linux kernel seems... like missing the point on a great many things. The rules for submitting kernel patches are laid out in great detail. Do you really thing arguing with the gatekeeper is going to change anything?
1.) Linus is being a bully. There's a difference between speaking your mind openly and using rhetorical force to invalidate contrary views.
2.) The kernel requirements can be whatever those who control the kernel demand. That's just common sense. Making the leap to declaring that only one text wrapping approach is objectively correct is delusional.
If Linus simply said "The github pull request interface makes it impossible to follow the kernel commit guidelines, and we are not open to reconsidering those guidelines" there'd be no argument.