Re: [PATCH 00/40] Memory allocation profiling

On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 04:37:36PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:

As an outside observer, I can assure you that absolutely came across as a
personal attack, and the precise kind that puts people off from
contributing. I should know as a hobbyist contributor myself.

quoted

If I was mistaken I do apologize, but lately I've run across quite a lot
of people offering review feedback to patches I post that turn out to
have 0 or 10 patches in the kernel, and - to be blunt - a pattern of
offering feedback in strong language with a presumption of experience
that takes a lot to respond to adequately on a technical basis.

I, who may very well not merit being considered a contributor of
significant merit in your view, have had such 'drive-by' commentary on some
of my patches by precisely this type of person, and at no time felt the
need to question whether they were a true Scotsman or not. It's simply not
productive.

quoted

I don't think a suggestion to spend a bit more time reading code instead
of speculating is out of order! We could all, put more effort into how
we offer review feedback.

It's the means by which you say it that counts for everything. If you feel
the technical comments might not be merited on a deeper level, perhaps ask
a broader question, or even don't respond at all? There are other means
available.

It's remarkable the impact comments like the one you made can have on
contributors, certainly those of us who are not maintainers and are
naturally plagued with imposter syndrome, so I would ask you on a human
level to try to be a little more considerate.

By all means address technical issues as robustly as you feel appropriate,
that is after all the purpose of code review, but just take a step back and
perhaps find the 'cuddlier' side of yourself when not addressing technical
things :)

Thanks for your reply, it's level headed and appreciated.

But I personally value directness, and I see quite a few people in this
thread going all out on the tone policing - but look, without the
directness the confusion (that Petr is not actually a new contributor)
never would've been cleared up.

Food for thought, perhaps?