djchump wrote:So it seems change, introspection and contrition can happen, but it takes at least 3 years: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/06/linix_kernel_dev_who_asked_linus_torvalds_to_stop_swearing_quits_over_swearing/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/09/17/linus_torvalds_apology/ https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/9/16/167
Unlikely wrote:Basically if you resort to shouting and swearing to get what you want you're not only a shit manager, you're a shit human being.
dynamiteReady wrote:Naked aggression isn't good for a manager. It can degrade their standing. The threat of punishment though is absolutely essential. This is open source shit. The submissions that Linus has to authorise are voluntary, though voluminous (in that a shortage of them would be very unlikely). The threat of demotion/fines isn't going to be applicable here. Isn't this reasonable alternative? Without any other leverage, how does he maintain the quality?Unlikely wrote:Basically if you resort to shouting and swearing to get what you want you're not only a shit manager, you're a shit human being.
dynamiteReady wrote:Isn't this reasonable alternative?
Reject the pull request.dynamiteReady wrote:...Without any other leverage, how does he maintain the quality?
djchump wrote:Reject the pull request. It's not rocket surgery.dynamiteReady wrote:...Without any other leverage, how does he maintain the quality?
dynamiteReady wrote:Ok. I'll bite, because this is a domain specific point. First thing, you absolutely should not just 'reject' a code submission on an open source project without a good explanation as to why. Especially high priority or substantial fixes. The first assumption here, is that he's deliberately obtuse.djchump wrote:Reject the pull request. It's not rocket surgery.dynamiteReady wrote:...Without any other leverage, how does he maintain the quality?
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!