From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Felipe Contreras Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Move sequencer to builtin Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 04:29:11 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20130608164902.GA3109@elie.Belkin> <20130608173447.GA4381@elie.Belkin> <20130609014049.GA10375@google.com> <20130609052624.GB561@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20130609174049.GA1039@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20130611091807.GA11361@alap2.anarazel.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: Jeff King , Jonathan Nieder , Duy Nguyen , Git Mailing List , Junio C Hamano , Brandon Casey , Ramkumar Ramachandra To: Andres Freund X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jun 11 11:29:19 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UmKtD-0005Qv-6Q for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 11 Jun 2013 11:29:19 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753091Ab3FKJ3P (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jun 2013 05:29:15 -0400 Received: from mail-la0-f45.google.com ([209.85.215.45]:61525 "EHLO mail-la0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752447Ab3FKJ3O (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jun 2013 05:29:14 -0400 Received: by mail-la0-f45.google.com with SMTP id fr10so6633984lab.4 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2013 02:29:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=BV9XS5/y5srAl2jORCP1PVTRjsJmInmt6gG0nKuPPHo=; b=lj0lpFblNHTFLtlliEAE53ubB3k/Q/oqsMmV0FVfshnxtCO1aiQyjPic2diJMqxMaR oVwBzzPuT6D7xgD/6pN+sonOChCo7PoeAHct0UhvSHYoLmamcdXzo/ONDAvDDTFcsjNT ZxLcZqXyGfrjXZ9O/3aNQAJPLgyKhESdImljh+1RaufceX4EJDJBzo84tK7/luKp8pmT xJZe06/3grBwBNEt0rmPtFg6FGYvsa85wzg6Bd0cZQE1l4a0bcTvR1j2wcrUSEziRW2M B4JBFwzAEeNINx7kYIb2ezyPxEI+NsY5XSDfDnl++kBT2Kg44PBTAQ0pMwERAbVulCQl McLQ== X-Received: by 10.152.27.102 with SMTP id s6mr6988102lag.47.1370942951499; Tue, 11 Jun 2013 02:29:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.59.202 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Jun 2013 02:29:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20130611091807.GA11361@alap2.anarazel.de> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 4:18 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2013-06-09 13:01:30 -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> >> You don't agree that 1) a collegial work environment is overrated, 2) >> >> that the Linux kernel doesn't put an emphasis on being collegial, or >> >> 3) that it's the most successful software project in history? >> > >> > Point 1. >> >> Good, so we agree that a project doesn't need a collegial work >> environment to be extremely and amazingly successful. In fact, any >> rational person would keep an open mind to the fact that perhaps it >> actually _helps_ to not have such environment, based on the evidence. > > Just from skimming both lists, most of the time I find lkml to be nicer > (and more collegial) to read because it has a better atmosphere than > git@ had in the last year or two. A better atmosphere, yes, because they know how to avoid flamewars, and concentrate on technical issues, not because they have a collegial work environment. Unless you think this reply[1] is collegial. Even though I haven't been following Linux mailing lists that closely lately, I still manage to see a lot of these kinds of replies. > And yes, a good atmosphere plays an important role. One of the reasons > is that it makes it easier to discern arguments based on personality > disputes - which certainly exist on lk - from actual technical > disagreements that need to be resolved. That's right, but that's not because everyone is collegial in LKML, which they most certainly are not. Linus being one of many examples. [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.usb.general/85952 -- Felipe Contreras