Re: The problem is, usually Linus is right
"With all due respect, "her responsibility" which is USB 3.0 continues to be fickle and quirky in Linux till today. She has allowed crap code to go in multiple times as a maintainer and is complaining that she gets flak. So while Linus is sometimes overdoing it, she is being disingenuous at best."
Right, where to start?
First, it was not "her responsibility", she is a volunteer. No one obliged her or paid her to do that work. Without her efforts you would not now have USB 3 in the kernel at all, you ungrateful prick. If it's too flaky for your tastes, you fix it. Can you do that? Thought not.
Second, are you saying that personal insults amount to valid technical criticism? In that case, here's some valid technical criticism for you: you're a fuckwit.
Third, if Linus was not happy from a technical point of view with her contributions, why would he have admitted it to the kernel? If he was unhappy he could have organised help or helped out himself maybe (afterall, Linus understands that volunteers have limited time available, that they've got lives outside of Linux, that no one actually wants to submit duff code, and that shouting at a volunteer does not magically give them 36 hours in the day. He knows that that extra effort helps fix duff code, it won't magically fix itself if one single volunteer hasn't got the resources to do the job). Or he could have excluded her code entirely from the kernel (i.e. "sacked" her) and made other arrangements for USB 3 support in Linux. He seemingly did none of these things. We can therefore conclude that from a technical point of view Linus was, overall, content with how things were.
Perhaps you should complain about flaky code to Linus, see where that gets you?
She's left, and given the reputation of the Linux community I can't say that I blame her at all. I'll thank her for her contribution, even if you won't.
Thank you for your contribution, Sarah Sharp.
Can you say that yourself? Go on, it doesn't hurt a bit.
The community now needs to find someone willing to pick up the poisoned chalice and run with it. An atmosphere of personal abuse is no way to incentivise someone to do work, especially when a) no one is paying them, b) there is life outside the Linux kernel community, and c) they have limited time to give (all volunteers have limited resources, lives to earn and run, etc. There's not a lot to encourage anyone else to take up USB 3 in Linux. Frankly, with Linus at the top of the pile, picking up "responsibility" for any kernel module seems to promise little in the way of glowing praise, thanks, etc, and guarantees a whole lot of unpleasantness. Who'd want that?
Perhaps another conclusion to be drawn from the presence of Sharp's USB 3 code in Linux is that Linus couldn't find anyone else willing to do it, and may now struggle to secure the unpaid, unloved labour of another volunteer. That might be the sad inevitability of this situation.