On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 08:04:29PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 09:33:34PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > > On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 05:12:49AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > > > On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 07:08:53PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > > > > > > > I split them like referendum ballots to see where the consensus at and > > > > not have big single discussion thread. > > > > > > Just in case - consensus would look like a lot of replies in support and > > > not > > > simply the lack of replies, right? > > > > Well, it is l-k, so absence of NAKs counts as OK. > > In your reality - perhaps...
Well, if nobody objects strongly, and maintainer agrees, then patch goes in. And if patch went in, then it everyone else's problem to undo it? Right? > So absense of NAKs on l-k may or may not count as "OK" from your point of > view, but it does not mean that there is any kind of consensus. Sure, but I can't force everyone to reply or vote so it is always blurry. Right now it is clear that Greg objects but I personally think his counter-argument is weak. He is basically saying that LOC count is too much so Linux should stick to how things were always have been even if "old style" is objectively inferior. > More to the point, if your... suggestions would go into D/CodingStyle, > replying to objections along the lines of "where the hell has that come > from and when have I agreed to that?" with "why haven't you replied > when I posted them to l-k?" is *NOT* likely to be well-received. Al, this is not Debian where they vote so everyone knows when and how everyone agreed to something. If you wake up one day and see "struct inode" renamed to "Inode", you have all the rights in the world to be upset about everything up to and including not being in Cc.
