Dropping Profanity In Kernel Code Comments: Linux Gets "Hugs"

[dungeon]

Meanwhile, 4.19 is a pile of shit.

From the Tower of Shit, i salute you

> cat /proc/sys/kernel/osrelease
4.19.6

[onicsis]

This is where SJWs and dumb politically-correct people are leading us.

As with Firefox, another ruined by SWJs. And F-bomb will become H-bomb.
More tolerance, meanning more and more bugs will remain unsolved. Thanks YoU!

[TemplarGR]

I love all the butthurt in the "edgy" part of the linux community... It is hillarious

[F.Ultra]

I love all the butthurt in the "edgy" part of the linux community... It is hillarious

Well since it seams to have dried up here are some more hilarious people to laugh at (or rather cry considering the fact that people really are this stupid)

[timrichardson]

It's just trolling. The patches are not in the kernel, they won't be accepted since they are actually in violation of the new code of conduct interpretation document:
"Content that already exists predating the Code of Conduct will not be addressed now as a violation"

The person who sent these patches to the mailing list has been corrected. Although he defends his patches as being based on careful consideration of the CoC, he claims not to have been aware of the interpretation document which specifically and explicitly rules out retrospective changes.

The contributor of these patches says he is not trolling, he says he was just bored on a long flight.
In my opinion, the comments here, and indeed Michael's article, are just feeding trolls.

[Brisse]

It's just trolling. The patches are not actually in the kernel, I doubt they will be accepted, and the code of conduct interpretation document already covers this, and rejects the need for it: "
Content that already exists predating the Code of Conduct will not be addressed now as a violation"

I agree it might be unlikely the patch is accepted, but I don't agree with your interpretation of that line in the CoC. That line really has nothing to do with this, because that line is simply there to protect the authors of those comments from being retroactively reprimanded. It doesn't prevent the code comments from being edited.

In short, the CoC applies to individuals, not code.

[rmoog]

Replace CoC with Sharia Law.

[lowflyer]

This is so fucking stupid...
You see the thought police in action.

[timrichardson]

I agree it might be unlikely the patch is accepted, but I don't agree with your interpretation of that line in the CoC. That line really has nothing to do with this, because that line is simply there to protect the authors of those comments from being retroactively reprimanded. It doesn't prevent the code comments from being edited.

In short, the CoC applies to individuals, not code.

Read the thread. It's not my interpretation, it is a verbatim quote from the interpretation document which the senior kernel developers adopted to guide application of the CoC (it is not actually in the CoC, but the CoC no longer stands on its own).

The CoC for sure does not prevent commits to Linux to fix bugs, and no one is suggesting that. It is up to the relevant maintainers to accept the patches, as it always is. They don't have technical merit. In fact, they make the comments worse, it is an attempt at satire, I guess.

The patches were 100% justified as addressing a violation of the CoC, although this was not actually established. It's the clear opinion of participants in the thread, and it is obviously the intent of the part I quoted, that the CoC can not be used in such a way, so much so that they won't even bother discussing if these historical comments violate the CoC.

If you read the thread, you will see that the author of the patch three or four times refused to acknowledge the existence of the interpretation document, finally conceding the argument in the face of the polite humiliation he invited upon himself. I wonder how long these games will go on, but the grown-ups won this round. It is hard to believe that this person has done anything but harm his reputation among the people he seeks to influence.

[L_A_G]

Do you remember the URLs (or, at least, names) for any of your sources for that? You've got me curious.

While the papers themselves are behind scientific journal paywalls, as all too many scientific papers are these days, here's some articles citing those papers.