How not to piss off a kernel subsystem maintainer - part 5

"Fifth in a long series of complaints... See part 1 and part 2 and part 3 and part4 for previous atrocities.

"Heck, It's not like I haven't said all of this before, but it sure seems like no one learns from the past, or reads the documentation that we write for how to actually submit a patch for the kernel. Linux has one of the best documented procedures for how to do this, it's not like it's a secret or something...

"Anyway, here's a list of patches that people have sent me in this week alone that have caused me major problems:

* patch was never even build tested, and of course, it breaks when you do build it.
* patch does build, but it was never tested because the patch does the opposite of what the submitter wanted to do.
* patch sent with no authorship
* patch sent with no signed-off-by line"

Complete Story

Related Stories:

• Who�s to Blame for the Linux Kernel?(Dec 10, 2010)
• Kernel Log: Coming in 2.6.36 (Part 2)(Sep 23, 2010)
• Editor's Note: Ubuntu, the Bad Selfish Linux(Jul 30, 2010)
• A flood of new, stable, Linux kernels(Jul 07, 2010)
• Kernel Log: New stable kernels and drivers(May 11, 2010)
• The kernel column by Jon Masters #85(Apr 01, 2010)