It seems from the link that the kernel developers would rather have one patch per new file plus a patch that does the integration, instead of one big patch with everything. That's a bit unconventional, perhaps because they tend to use git alone instead of higher-level software that would help them break down a big single commit; but whatever they're doing clearly works for them.
The entire dispute seems to be that minor question of style, nothing substantive. I don't think anyone's specially unhappy on either side. The controversy seems manufactured, perhaps by a reporter who noticed the gruff language but lacked the technical knowledge to understand what's actually going on.
Most people developing free software (probably including both the submitters and recipients of this patch) could make a lot more money elsewhere, but have chosen to instead to do work with considerable public benefit. That's thankless enough already without some reporter inventing drama for clicks.
> perhaps because they tend to use git alone instead of higher-level software that would help them break down a big single commit
git is capable of breaking down a large diff into manageable pieces (e.g., limiting a diff to a single file), but reviewing code in a mailing list means replying to the message that contains a patch and replying inline to certain parts to comment on it.
As for higher level software that could break down a large commit, what specifically do you have in mind? I can't think of any feature that other review tools like Git??b, gerrit, reviewboard, phabricator, etc. that would make something like this easy to review.
I meant like GitHub and competitors, which let you attach comments to specific lines and files and such, and perhaps follow references into the full code faster than you could flipping between your mail client and your editor (and save you the effort of applying the patch to a local tree for that review). Since the kernel developers prefer to discuss on a plain mailing list and not use such tools, it makes sense that they prefer smaller chunks.
27 kLOC will be a big project to review no matter what, but I'd probably rather take them in a single commit--the files presumably depend on each other, and there's probably no order in which the files could be reviewed in isolation without reference to files not yet reviewed. (Obviously we try for hierarchical structure that would make that possible, but not usually with perfect success.)
That's a matter of personal preference, though, and people who want a project to merge their contributions should adhere to the maintainer's preferences. In any case, it seems Paragon intends to do exactly that. I doubt Paragon expected their reward for their contribution would be an article read by thousands of people that called it "half-baked" over this minor point, and I can't imagine such publicity encourages others to make similar contributions in future.
> I meant like GitHub and competitors, which let you attach comments to specific lines and files and such
Github does allow you to filter the diff down to the commit or jump to a particular file within the diff. Commenting on a line in the diff isn't really any different than positioning one's comment inline below the relevant line(s) of code in an email reply. I know that in Github, it's also possible to comment directly on a commit (though those comments are not displayed with any context in the general PR view), unlike an email reply to a particular patch series.
Depending on one's email client, it's certainly possible to search for things like /^diff/ or /^@@/ to jump from file to file or hunk to hunk within the compose window.
> perhaps follow references into the full code faster than you could flipping between your mail client and your editor (and save you the effort of applying the patch to a local tree for that review).
For some, the email client doubles as an editor (i.e., gnus). And, at least in my experience, it's far faster to navigate code in an editor compared to the web interface that Git??b provides.
> 27 kLOC will be a big project to review no matter what, but I'd probably rather take them in a single commit--the files presumably depend on each other
While that's true, the dependency can be preserved when merging the branch of the series of commits in the mainline repository. Plus, many may find it easier to review declarations, definitions, and calls in that order.
> Most people developing free software (probably including both the submitters and recipients of this patch) could make a lot more money elsewhere
I think most free software developers are normal corporate employees. I work on tons of free software as my job, like most of my peers, but that’s normal in the industry. I don’t consider myself a free software developer.
Fair--depending what "most" is weighted by, I may have overstated, and a Google employee who happens to get assigned to work on Chrome stuff is certainly making no personal sacrifice.
I meant independent volunteers or people working for free-software-focused companies (which I believe usually offer well below FAANG-level compensation, especially at the high end, though still enough to live quite well). Excluding hardware vendors porting Linux to their own products, I believe the core kernel developers tend to fall in to that last category. I have no specific knowledge of their individual compensation, but the technical leads responsible for closed-source projects of similar scope make incredible amounts of money.
The entire dispute seems to be that minor question of style, nothing substantive. I don't think anyone's specially unhappy on either side. The controversy seems manufactured, perhaps by a reporter who noticed the gruff language but lacked the technical knowledge to understand what's actually going on.
Most people developing free software (probably including both the submitters and recipients of this patch) could make a lot more money elsewhere, but have chosen to instead to do work with considerable public benefit. That's thankless enough already without some reporter inventing drama for clicks.