←back to thread

222 points ksec | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.567s | source
Show context
sevg ◴[] No.45076556[source]
Is it just me or does Kent seem self-destructively glued to his own idea of how kernel development should work?

I don’t doubt that people on all sides have made mis-steps, but from the outside it mostly just seems like Kent doesn’t want to play by the rules (despite having been given years of patience).

replies(5): >>45077241 #>>45077371 #>>45077492 #>>45077724 #>>45080172 #
ajb ◴[] No.45077371[source]
I think Kent is in the wrong here, but it really doesn't help that the kernel people from Linus on down are seemingly unable to explain the problem, and instead resort to playground insults. Apart from being unprofessional and making for a hostile work environment, it doesn't really communicate why Kent's actions are problematic, so I've some sympathy for his not believing that they are.
replies(4): >>45077463 #>>45077573 #>>45077673 #>>45084091 #
sevg ◴[] No.45077463[source]
> it doesn't really communicate why Kent's actions are problematic

I agree that the kernel community can be a hostile environment.

Though I’d argue that people _have_ tried to explain things to Kent, multiple times. At least a few have been calm, respectful attempts.

Sadly, Kent responds to everything in an email except the key part that is being pointed out to him (usually his behavior). Or deflects by going on the attack. And generally refuses to apologise.

replies(2): >>45077645 #>>45077786 #
philipallstar ◴[] No.45077786[source]
> Sadly, Kent responds to everything in an email except the key part that is being pointed out to him (usually his behavior).

Behaviour sounds like the least important part of code contributions. I smell overpowered, should've-been-a-kindergarten-teacher code of conduct person overreach.

replies(2): >>45078774 #>>45083277 #
1. jeltz ◴[] No.45083277[source]
No, Kent has generally had a nice tone. The issue is that he has repeatedly violated the rules about code contributions. For example by including new features together with several bug-fixes during rc. That is not a CoC issue, it is not respecting the rules of patch submission and not respecting the time of the kernel maintainers.
replies(1): >>45101380 #
2. philipallstar ◴[] No.45101380[source]
I agree that is a problem, but the main thing the eye-rolling posts seem to be about is CoC stuff, real or imaginary.

Example of eye-rolling post, above:

> Sadly, Kent responds to everything in an email except the key part that is being pointed out to him (usually his behavior). Or deflects by going on the attack. And generally refuses to apologise.

And there's an email thread linked somewhere here where a CoC member repeatedly replies to Kent's emails with demands for a formal apology. All of this soft, subtle stuff adds up to an impression in people's heads, even though the main output of these projects should be highly complex software, and not bike-shedding email mediation.