I can agree that Github is not particularly great for someone used to the original git pull requests, but I'm intrigued by this note:
> no sane word-wrap of the long description you type: github commit
> messages tend to be (if they have any description at all) one long
> unreadable line.
Why does word wrapping need to be a concern of those writing the message rather than the software showing it to the reader? I generally find them to be too short on big screens while being too big for small phone screens. They are also a pain to write manually if you ever have to go back and perform a substantial edit in the middle of a paragraph; one could argue your editor could help you with that, but if I need a software to do this anyway why can't that be used on the viewer side, where they can also customize settings as they see fit without annoying other people?
Is some kind of smear campaign against Torvalds going on? For some reason I’ve been seeing a lot of this old stuff make the rounds. This one is actually quite harsh (the “moron” bit) and I don’t particularly agree with the hard-wrapping, but I detest the indignation and moral panic that invariably follows… I also detested it back then, but it’s especially disgusting now that he’s mellowed out a bit.
Torvalds does not really need any help from a smear campaign to come off as abrasive. He is as he is, one of a multitude of different kinds of engineers (indeed, people) one can find I the real world.
Sure, but digging up 13 year old stuff still smacks of intention and I generally find it distasteful. What good-faith reading should we apply to this submission? It’s not like Torvalds is going around sweet-talking people into give him money or votes or attention or whatever, in which case I might see some merit in “exposing” him.
>when those people with lower standards try to get their commits
included in the kernel, I will ridicule them and point out how broken
their commit messages or pull requests are.
>Agreed?