[piscisaureus]

I understand that reviewing 27k LoC is daunting and probably not very fun.

But unlike most patches that draw a similar response it's not a narrowly useful patch that mostly serves the submitter. Proper NTFS support benefits a large proportion of Linux users (the jab from the article that there are more advanced file systems out there seems out of place; there are no signs that windows is about to switch its default FS to something else).

Additionally this code has been used in production for years now (e.g. my 2015 router runs the closed source version of this driver in order to support NTFS formatted external drives) so most likely a lot of quality issues have already been found and addressed.

So I feel it's a bit unreasonable to respond with so much negativity to this contribution.

[AnotherGoodName]

It's also no big deal from either side. Paragon sent in the patch and it's appreciated. There's a few problems to get this in. Reviewers noted the issues and what would need to be done to get this through. The process to get this in is happening.

Split your diff! and Fix your makefile! have to be one of the most benign and common pieces of diff feedback i've seen. I feel that you could make a media story about any submission to the Linux kernel based on there being comments in the review process.

[piscisaureus]

Admittedly I didn't actually read the mailing list discussion. It's entirely possible that The Register made up a big drama where there was none.

[chx]

I read the discussion. There's no drama at all. Paragon did an unreviewable code dump with intent to maintain and they are warmly welcome in general. David laid out the path to review and probable acceptance https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20200815190642.GZ2026@... If there was any fuss it's because of the unreviewable nature of the patch but especially by kernel standards the discussion was cordial. In fact, aside from Nikolay's outburst by any standard it was a cordial discussion. (Someone should've gently told him this is no way to welcome newcomers especially newcomers carrying such a gift.)

Others noted it needs to pass the existing test suite and that it is close.

[mehrdadn]

Not sure if this counts as drama per Linux kernel mailing list standards: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/2911ac5cd20b46e397be50...

> So how exactly do you expect someone to review this monstrosity ?

[tripletao]

It seems from the link that the kernel developers would rather have one patch per new file plus a patch that does the integration, instead of one big patch with everything. That's a bit unconventional, perhaps because they tend to use git alone instead of higher-level software that would help them break down a big single commit; but whatever they're doing clearly works for them.

The entire dispute seems to be that minor question of style, nothing substantive. I don't think anyone's specially unhappy on either side. The controversy seems manufactured, perhaps by a reporter who noticed the gruff language but lacked the technical knowledge to understand what's actually going on.

Most people developing free software (probably including both the submitters and recipients of this patch) could make a lot more money elsewhere, but have chosen to instead to do work with considerable public benefit. That's thankless enough already without some reporter inventing drama for clicks.

[u801e]

> perhaps because they tend to use git alone instead of higher-level software that would help them break down a big single commit

git is capable of breaking down a large diff into manageable pieces (e.g., limiting a diff to a single file), but reviewing code in a mailing list means replying to the message that contains a patch and replying inline to certain parts to comment on it.

As for higher level software that could break down a large commit, what specifically do you have in mind? I can't think of any feature that other review tools like Git??b, gerrit, reviewboard, phabricator, etc. that would make something like this easy to review.

[tripletao]

I meant like GitHub and competitors, which let you attach comments to specific lines and files and such, and perhaps follow references into the full code faster than you could flipping between your mail client and your editor (and save you the effort of applying the patch to a local tree for that review). Since the kernel developers prefer to discuss on a plain mailing list and not use such tools, it makes sense that they prefer smaller chunks.

27 kLOC will be a big project to review no matter what, but I'd probably rather take them in a single commit--the files presumably depend on each other, and there's probably no order in which the files could be reviewed in isolation without reference to files not yet reviewed. (Obviously we try for hierarchical structure that would make that possible, but not usually with perfect success.)

That's a matter of personal preference, though, and people who want a project to merge their contributions should adhere to the maintainer's preferences. In any case, it seems Paragon intends to do exactly that. I doubt Paragon expected their reward for their contribution would be an article read by thousands of people that called it "half-baked" over this minor point, and I can't imagine such publicity encourages others to make similar contributions in future.

[chrisseaton]

> Most people developing free software (probably including both the submitters and recipients of this patch) could make a lot more money elsewhere

I think most free software developers are normal corporate employees. I work on tons of free software as my job, like most of my peers, but that’s normal in the industry. I don’t consider myself a free software developer.

[tripletao]

Fair--depending what "most" is weighted by, I may have overstated, and a Google employee who happens to get assigned to work on Chrome stuff is certainly making no personal sacrifice.

I meant independent volunteers or people working for free-software-focused companies (which I believe usually offer well below FAANG-level compensation, especially at the high end, though still enough to live quite well). Excluding hardware vendors porting Linux to their own products, I believe the core kernel developers tend to fall in to that last category. I have no specific knowledge of their individual compensation, but the technical leads responsible for closed-source projects of similar scope make incredible amounts of money.

[isatty]

It’s a legitimate concern - I would not assume malice. How exactly would someone review a 25k loc .patch file?

[michaelt]

It would be tough, no doubt.

But it's not like splitting the feature into 100 patches of 250 lines each would make it any quicker to review. Or merging code that was known not to work, as it was only a fraction of what was needed for the functionality.

[wtallis]

> But it's not like splitting the feature into 100 patches of 250 lines each would make it any quicker to review. Or merging code that was known not to work, as it was only a fraction of what was needed for the functionality.

That would also be rejected, because the kernel maintainers aren't idiots and their standards aren't the stupid arbitrary rules you construe them to be. They generally want big changes to be broken up into logical, sensible chunks that each leave the tree in a usable state, so that git-bisect still works.

[mehrdadn]

I didn't mean to imply otherwise. Drama is often not malice and rather due to legitimate concerns on one or both sides.

[rat9988]

I assume malice because of the tone. The concern is legitimate, the tone is offputting.

[phs318u]

Welcome to Linux kernel development. By lkml history, this tone is very mild. There are many examples of far worse commentary and personal attacks on devs. I’m not justifying this by the way. Linus can be a very smart jerk, and as a leader (THE leader) he sets the tone for what’s acceptable in the community.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/linux-developer-who-took-on-li...

[echlebek]

There wasn't much drama in the mailing list discussion as I read it. Mostly comments asking "can you make this easier for us to review?".

[geofft]

There were two specific concerns in the initial review that I think were reasonable:

1) The Linux kernel already has an in-kernel read-only NTFS driver. What should be done about it? (There are a number of reasonable options here, including just getting rid of it and replacing it with Paragon's, but that requires at least some buy-in from the maintainers of the existing driver.)

2) The patch didn't actually build, which was a one-line Makefile fix, but raised some concern about how it wax tested/how the patch was generated.