Clarification for general change acceptance

[SF Markus Elfring]

> Developer reputation matters for somewhat controversial
> patches being applied as well as non-controversial and
> obviously correct patches being ignored.

I am aware that there are more factors involved.


> Your reputation means most all of your patches fall into
> the latter category.

I hope that this situation will evolve into directions which you would prefer more.


> You have produced many trivial patches

This is true.

I started my concrete contributions to Linux software modules with simple
source code search patterns.


> that have caused new defects.

A few unwanted programming mistakes just happened somehow.


> That is simply unacceptable.

Glitches are not desired as usual.



> Especially when you don't immediately fix the problems you cause.

I find my response times reasonable to some degree so far.

Remaining open issues can be clarified by a corresponding constructive
development dialogue, can't they?



> If you would stop producing the trivial and instead
> channel your efforts into actual bug fixing and logic
> corrections and not just style modifications with no
> code impact, your patch acceptance rate would increase.

I find your conclusion appropriate.

But I will come along source code places where I am going to update details
which are also trivial.


> I have given you many suggestions for actual structural
> improvements to kernel code.

I have got an other impression. There were a few occasions where advanced
change possibilities were proposed.


> You have ignored _all_ of them and I am unlikely to try
> to interact with you any longer until your wheat:chaff
> ratio changes.

Can the efforts for deleting questionable error messages around Linux memory
allocation functions improve this situation?

Regards,
Markus