





linux kernel monkey log

Fifth in a long series of complaints... See part 1 and part 2 and part 3 and part4 for previous atrocities. Heck, It's not like I haven't said all of this before, but it sure seems like no one learns from the past, or reads the documentation that we write for how to actually submit a patch for the kernel. Linux has one of the best documented procedures for how to do this, it's not like it's a secret or something... Anyway, here's a list of patches that people have sent me in this week alone that have caused me major problems: patch was never even build tested, and of course, it breaks when you do build it.

patch does build, but it was never tested because the patch does the opposite of what the submitter wanted to do.

patch sent with no authorship

patch sent with no signed-off-by line

patch sent with no description of what the patch did

patch sent with a description, yet it was not the description of the patch itself

patch sent with a description that the patch only did one thing, yet the patch did 4 different things

patch sent with a description that made no sense at all

patch sent in a series of 13 patches, all with the same exact subject, and no description of what the patch did

a one line patch that if applied, would instantly break the build

patch that asked for reviews, yet gets angry when you ask why something was done a certain way

patch that asked for reviews, and when asked, can't explain why code was done a certain way, blaming a non-existent person for that portion

patch that said it fixed a bug, yet added a new feature without fixing the original bug

patch for cleaning up coding style issues, yet adds different coding issues

patches asked for review, yet had obviously never been even run through our automatic "test this patch for sanity" tools. Yeah, it's been a fun week... And if anyone ever wonders why code reviewers are grumpy, just look at the above list and understand. posted Thu, 10 Feb 2011 in [/linux]

