[foreslion]

Here are some words Linus used to describe the submitted code: crazy, stupid, garbage, needs to get bent, incomprehensible.

Would you like to work at a place where these words are used to give feedback? I sure wouldn’t. But maybe I’m a snowflake.

[themafia]

The context is, pull requests of this magnitude were expected before the merge window, and this was sent after and made these modifications to generic header files used in other sub-trees. This has also happened previously.

So the commentary was on more than just the code it was on the entire situation. It was concluded by saying they could do this but not in generic headers and they could try the PR again early in the next release.

That language was not meant to be inflammatory but stern and the door was left wide open for future submissions.

Would I mind this in my workplace? Probably not. Particularly if my boss was a well known programmer with decades of experience and inside knowledge to share with me.

[chris_wot]

The thing is, if he got this patch at the right time, what’s the bet he would have said this is bad code, gave the same feedback but toned it down?

I get the sense that he’s more upset by the timing, and whilst unimpressed with the code, he’s reacting because of the timing. Hard to tell though because of the way that email is written.

[almost_usual]

If it came from an engineer as respected as Linus, sure. Someone who was average at best with a big ego? No.

Context matters here.

[chris_wot]

So if you are a respected peer, it’s fine to abuse others, because you’ll get away with it?

That way allows for tyrants.

[almost_usual]

If it makes me a better engineer and the feedback is valid sure. If they are attacking my personal beliefs or family that is a different matter.

I’m not saying it’s OK for everyone. If folks are unable to extract the same value that’s fine, find advice from someone else.