Fun Fact:<p>If you tack '.patch' onto the end of a Pull Request you get a 'git am' compatible patch file complete with the email address that Linus complains is missing ;)<p><a href="https://github.com/torvalds/linux/pull/17.patch" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/torvalds/linux/pull/17.patch</a><p>EDIT: I should note this works on any <i>commit</i> as well. Take this commit from Casbah (the Scala MongoDB driver I work on) - <a href="https://github.com/mongodb/casbah/commit/990a36fbde69db26689b9bcf680719928f6c11c8.patch" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/mongodb/casbah/commit/990a36fbde69db26689...</a> - removing .patch gives you the normal web based github commit page.
The man wrote git for use on the Linux kernel. Trying to argue with him about how to use git with respect to your tiny patch to the Linux kernel seems... like missing the point on a great many things. The rules for submitting kernel patches are laid out in great detail. Do you really thing arguing with the gatekeeper is going to change anything?
I don't mean to be overly critical, but is it just me or are the 'godfathers' of computer science starting to sound like cranky old men?<p>I mean....ok....this pull request being inferior to the way HE (the creator of Git) imagined it (or implemented it) is a bit petty imho.<p>What's with the complaining? I am sure this is not the first time I have heard him complaining about something on Github or some other 'new technology'. The same goes with Crockford and his semi-colon.<p>Edit: Although, I must confess that it is annoying when the creators of a service that you use totally blow off your suggestions (esp. when that service is built on your own creation).....so I am torn on this one. Still has the 'annoying old man complaining feel' to it though.
Man, now I feel like a total hack. I love the github pull request. I do insist that my devs use a good style (i.e. first line is a summary and wrap at 80 chars) but I love the user interface for looking at diffs and doing a code review. I had no idea it was inferior until reading this and now I find myself in the awkward position that I don't care. Have I really become the guy who values an efficient team process more that adherence to esoteric specifications. God, I can't believe it's come to that.
I don't understand why people are upset with Linus's writing style. I considered what he wrote to be quite polite. He was merely stating his standards in terms of what he would and wouldn't accept (and github pull requests are on the "won't accept" list). He even explained why he wouldn't accept it.<p>Furthermore, the patch was deficient in other ways. (a) it was missing the Signed-off-by: header, and (b) it should have been sent to the linux-bluetooth mailing list or one of the Bluetooth maintainers, with the linux-bluetooth mailing list cc'ed.
It's instructive to read Linus's commits to his hobby project "subsurface":<p><a href="https://github.com/torvalds/subsurface/commits/master" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/torvalds/subsurface/commits/master</a><p>Even if I can't code like Linus, I can at least try to write commit messages like his…
Well here's the thing: Linus is right.<p>Linus does not hesitate to criticize and always think about things before declaring them cool.<p>Oh he makes errors like everybody. He's usually not always very nice in messages (read LKML and you'll understand). But he's usually right and he's usually not writing random things because "it is trendy".<p>So GitHub is trendy. Linus doesn't care. Linus cares for the good features and pull isn't one of them in his eyes. And then again, I think he's right. Pull in GitHub is crappy.<p>But what's missing from his message is the <i>reason</i> why the GitHub pull is crappy. I'm sure he knows, but he's using half words. Here's the reason:<p>If GitHub enforced proper pull messages PEOPLE WOULDN'T USE IT. Why? Because it's the easyness to fork and pull that make GitHub successful. So you see, pulls have to be <i>DEAD EASY</i>. And that means also "single text field, no enforcement of anything".<p>So yeah. GitHub won't fix it, because it'll be bad for their business.
I hope the github folks get involved in this. I'm specially interested in what they have to say about why they decided to go with what Linus calls _their own totally inferior version_.<p>Love this no-nonsense style, but let me say that it's no only the style, but that Linus has enough on his side to back it up.
From his "subsurface" project README.<p><i>Also, please write good git commit messages. A good commit message
looks like this:<p>Header line: explaining the commit in one line<p>Body of commit message is a few lines of text, explaining things
in more detail, possibly giving some background about the issue
being fixed, etc etc.<p>The body of the commit message can be several paragraphs, and
please do proper word-wrap and keep columns shorter than about
74 characters or so. That way "git log" will show things
nicely even when it's indented.<p>Reported-by: whoever-reported-it
Signed-off-by: Your Name <youremail@yourhost.com></i>
I also do not care for the pull requests, for much the same reasons. I like there is a way to bring a branch to a maintainer's attention and updating its commit range in event of updates before it is accepted, but the way messages that result from merging in the code is irritating, so I end up just using "git pull" to do the trick once the branch looks good to me.
For people wondering why Linus said "You are a moron" to a particular user named "Joseph": The comment he was replying to was deleted. <a href="https://github.com/pirtlj" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/pirtlj</a><p>in one of his comment,
"I did not realizes that Linus' shit does not stink. Thanks for clearing that up..."<p>Apparently, even if a comment gets deleted from a Github discussion, it still sticks to your public activity.
Jesus, watching some of the little snowflakes on here whining about how Linus chooses to run his repository is seriously disheartening. When did the the tech community get infiltrated by so many prima donnas and drama queens? If you have a problem with Linus' style or how he chooses to use the tool he made, build an alternative (if you can...) or swap over to a different stack and get on with your life. Stop whining.
antirez via twitter: "Linus, I'm with you. Preserve your bastion of code quality as it's something rare and rapidly fading away."<p><a href="https://twitter.com/#!/antirez/status/201065752395124737" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/#!/antirez/status/201065752395124737</a>
I get the point he's trying to make and completely agree with it, but the way he presented his issues just made me lose respect for him a little bit ... I just wish someone that respected was able to present his views in a way that younger developers could emulate.<p>I can't help thinking tons of "rockstar/ninja" developers out there are going to embrace this abrasive style of disagreeing with people and totally rationalize it by thinking well "that's how the guy who wrote Linux does it, so that's how I'm going to do it"<p>Someone that well respected should (and this is my opinion) never have to reach to the level of addressing someone so far-removed from the heights they've attained, as a 'moron', when simply ignoring them would do. But I'm nobody important, so what the hell do I know about anything ...
That's pretty relevant comment. GitHub pull request system is great if you want to attract a bunch of script kiddies to participate on your project. For serious work, not so much.
Maintainer of a project doesn't like a tool some people like to use. News at 11.<p>Seriously. Just dont' send this particular maintainer pull requests that way.
I have to agree with Linus on this and it's nice that he's taking time to write out his thoughts in public.<p>GitHub commit messages can be really ugly. I'm guilty of this and it's not something I'm proud of. I think the small improvement they did a while ago with the display of commit messages is a step in the right direction, I wish they would apply that same style to the web interface when composing commit messages.<p>edit: A good fix would be a way to turn off pull requests for projects or at least redirect users on how to send pull requests.
Maybe github can make it easier to send messages in reply to a pull request, or even show an email field there. Having people type out their email into the pull request is not the best way to handle that on the web interface I don't think (although practically speaking if you want to use email it is perfectly reasonable to make that a rule for your project until there is a feature like that for git and github). Ideally git itself could make it convenient to view that as a separate field with the pull request.<p>I am also pissed when someone ignores a feature I have written and redoes something without good reason.<p>Torvalds probably doesn't have time to handle a whole bunch of git pull requests, and most of them from github probably have problems or aren't important so this rule probably helps him a lot, practically speaking.<p>But obviously the people at github should really carefully analyze what he is requesting and if possible this could result in some minor improvements in that part of the github interface or git or both.<p>I don't know much about the Linux kernel, but I don't think that this type of driver information should be in such a centralized place and controlled by an individual or small group of individuals.
As genius as Linus is, the dude needs to take a couple of shots of harden the f*ck up. I'm sick of his school girl rants and complaints. For such a well-known figure head in the open source/computing industry he sure does complain a lot.
I can see two stupid comments by pirtlj (<a href="https://github.com/pirtlj" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/pirtlj</a>)<p>>pirtlj commented on pull request 17 on torvalds/linux a day ago
Ouch my feelings are broken... I just wish you would live up to your image, but then again you're just an imperfect human too.<p>>pirtlj commented on pull request 17 on torvalds/linux a day ago
I did not realizes that Linus' shit does not stink. Thanks for clearing that up...
The one thing I'll have to give credit to Linus for is that even if people continue to post absurd comments after his original lengthy counterpoint, he will delve into a more polite rhetoric and continue to explain his point, over and over. It's quite the opposite, in fact, of many people who write online where typically the end result is simply escalation or continued fervor.
Github should implement a tempting system for commit messages that way every project can enforce there own standars. And those templates should be shareable, like a template repository so new and existing projects can opt to use one of the exciting ones.<p>problem solved :)
i am i the only one who's reading Torvald's comments with David Mitchell's voice? <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqSZEGj-SuI" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqSZEGj-SuI</a>
As long as Linus patiently explained why he doesn't accept guthub pull requests, it seemed ok. But calling someone a moron for it, that kinda hurts the community!