> 1. Why are changes which are of a non-technological origin being
> allowed to be made. Particularlly when those changes do break
> previous functioning code and applications. Changing documentation
> is one thing, changing source code and comments is a total
> different matter.
This 'non-technological' is a red herring. Source code doesn't exist just
to be compiled and executed. It also exists for human beings to read,
maintain, and enhance it. I like good spelling and good grammar and I
appreciate Trevor Johnson's spelling cleanup patches. They make it easier
for me to read code, because my internal 'spelling checker' doesn't
throw off as many flags.
On the other hand, I am in sympathy with Dave Miller's position, too:
changes in diction or style don't make the code more readable for me,
and they do interfere with the author's own ability to read, maintain,
and enjoy their work.
> 2. Why is someone, other than the author/maintainer, making changes
> to the source code and the comments contained in the source code.
Linus Torvalds is *the* maintainer of the Linux kernel. Therefore,
these changes were indeed made by the maintainer.
But that's a pedantic reason. The real reason is: the Linux tradition
is: if you see something broken, fix it and publish a patch.
And we are now engaging in another fine Linux tradition: a policy change
has appeared in a development kernel, and people are debating whether
it's a good policy or not.
> The internal critics are using the incident as an example that
> the opensource community is not a peer review of source code
> but a one person crusade to correct spelling and grammar errors
> with disregard for the original intent of the author/maintainer
> and for what it breaks.
I would answer these critics as follows: (1) this change did get peer
reviewed. Trevor Johnson wrote it, Linus Torvalds reviewed it. That's
enough to put it into a *BETA* kernel. Also notice this disqualifies
it as a "one person crusade". (2) the Linux community is, right now,
performing its peer review process on the *BETA* kernel. A lot of
people are going to express a lot of opinions, and then I expect Linus
Will Speak, and we will very likely follow his leadership.
Personally, if the critics are as you describe, I would come right
out and challenge their sincerity. There are legitimate reasons
to not want to use Linux, but "beta kernels sometimes have spelling
fixes that introduce bugs (which get fixed in the next beta kernel)"
is a lame sorry excuse.
Michael Chastain
<mailto:mec@shout.net>
"love without fear"
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu