@larsmb@tante I think the point in question was highly visible enough.
Had that conversation been allowed to continue, it would have gone on for hundreds of posts, and brought people out of the woodwork that you really would rather not know even exist. We've been there in the past, and it threatened to kill the site at one point. Thus our "no personal attacks" policy, which we had to enforce here.
Should we, instead, have just pulled down the article, as some are saying? That would have "blocked the discussion" too, of course. We also try not to hide our mistakes.
Things like this make me wish I'd made a career in JavaScript framework development or some such. Now if you'll excuse me, I have some kernel drama to somehow deal with.
@davidgerard First, what "mask" do you think has come off?
Second: if you look hard, you still will not find either of us "defending her honor". Please do not put words in our mouths.
We did do our best to close down the conversation; what good comes from hundreds of posts of people throwing names at each other? There are enough posts criticizing the person involved for anybody to get the point; there are almost none in the other direction. Trust me that this would not have been the case had we let the conversation run. *That*, perhaps, indicates an editorial bias, but it is not the one you are accusing us of.
Look, as I posted in the thread, had we known the backstory of the person involved, there is a good chance we would not have run that article. We are a small operation, we lack a biographical research unit, we will not have a background file on any of the hundreds of developers we write about over the course of a year.
@krzk@jarkko I could certainly consider adding per-employer test and review stats. If so, they are likely to show up in KSDB (https://lwn.net/ksdb/) first; I need to get back into that code anyway...
@kernellogger@torvalds I am almost certainly the person who wrote those words. Yes, they could be improved... but note that the text talks about failing to *respond* to the regression, not the revert. That was surely the intent there, and I think it remains true.
@kernellogger@jann It's not just "unusual" that a cycle takes longer than 70 days, it has only happened twice in the last 15 years: 3.1 (slowed by the kernel.org compromise) and 4.15 (the meltdown/spectre release). It takes an event of that magnitude to slow things down at this point.
I'm not sure if we can realistically make the cycle shorter - some problems just take time to turn up and to be fixed.
As is normal, the September report says that all is great with the project - community health is always "improving". And they are clearly on top of upcoming problems: "Python 2 is unmaintained. We have in the development tree the external python3 support. Internal python 3 support is difficult. We are checking alternatives." They plan to fix it in "the next major release". The project hasn't made a major release in ten years, so I wouldn't hold my breath...
(OK, so I'm still clearly in a snarky mode, sorry.)
GnuCash fixed this upstream on October 26, but has not made a release with the fix, so my 5.9 Fedora version showed the bug in all its glory. I've submitted a bug there (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2323303), hopefully they will include the fix soon. Meanwhile, I strongly recommend that anybody with GnuCash 5.9 installed be extra careful.
*Edited* since people are asking: NAK (or NACK) comes (I believe) from the ASCII negative-acknowledge character. In this context, is an abrupt way for a maintainer to reject a patch.
On the radar: what is the linux-kernel mailing list for? @monsieuricon is suggesting that many or most patch postings be redirected to a separate list:
I've not jumped into the conversation because I'm still trying to figure out what I think about it. I'm one of those people who actually reads over that list; the broad view it provides is helpful in both the LWN and documentation-maintainer roles. But it *is* painful to keep up with.
LKML has traditionally been the place you post patches to get them reviewed. If that's not its role anymore, what is it for?