4 ms·

Your analogy fails to account that after "Friday" bug fixes are still allowed. A file system losing your files sounds like a bug to me. Edit since you expanded

Your analogy fails to account that after "Friday" bug fixes are still allowed. A file system losing your files sounds like a bug to me. Edit since you expanded your post: >The most interesting to me was LWN, about the debian tools, where an actual psychologist got involved. To me the comment was patronizing implying it was purely due to bad communication from Kent's end and shows how immature people are with running these operating system are. Putting priority on processes over the end user. >respecting their decisions and moving on. When this causes real pain for end users. It's validating that the decision was wrong. > really doesn't matter how "right" you may be... not your circus It does because it causes reputational damage for bcachefs. Even beyond reputational damage, delivering a good product to end users should be a priority. In my opinion projects as big as Debian causing harm to users should be called out instead of ignored. Else it can lead to practices like replacing dependencies out from underneath programs to become standard practice.

wavemode 1y ago
You still seem to be arguing that, shipping the change was the "right" thing to do. But that's not what's in dispute. Rather it is that, if what you think is right and what the person who makes the rules thinks is right are in disagreement, the adult thing to do is not to simply disregard the rules (and certainly not repeatedly, after being warned not to). This is the difference between being smart and being wise. If the goal of all this grandstanding was that, it's so incredibly and vitally important for these patches to get into the kernel, well guess what, now due to all this drama this part of the kernel is going to go unmaintained entirely. Is that good for the users? Did that help our stated goal in any way? No.
- charcircuit 1y ago
  >the adult thing to do is not to simply disregard the rules The adult thing is to do best by the users. Critical file system bugs are worth blocking the release of any serious operating system in the real world as there is serious user impact. >Is that good for the users? I think it's complicated. It could allow for a faster release schedule for bug fixes which can allow for addressing file system issues faster.
  - nirava 1y ago
    > The adult thing is to do best by the users Best by users in the long term is predictable processes. "RC = pure bug fixes" is a battle tested, dependable rule, absence of which causes chaos. > Critical file system bugs are worth blocking the release "Experimental" label EXACTLY to prevent this stuff from blocking release. Do you not know that bcachefs is experimental? This is an example of another rule which helps predictability.
    - charcircuit 1y ago
      This was a bug fix. My point is that there will always be bugs in the kernel so not all bugs are worth blocking a release, but losing data is worth blocking the release for. >"Experimental" label EXACTLY to prevent this stuff from blocking release In practice bcachefs is used in production with real users. If the experimental label prevents critical bug fixes from making it into the kernel then it would be better to just remove that label.
      - motorest 1y ago
        > This was a bug fix. I'm not sure exactly what you are talking about, and I'm not sure you do either. The discussion that preceded bcachefs to be dropped from the Linux kernel mainline involved an attempt to sneak a new features in RC, sidestepping testing and QA work, which was followed up by yet more egregious behavior from the mantainer. https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-616-Bcachefs-Late-Feature https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-616-Bcachefs-Late-Featur...
        charcircuit 1y ago
        >sneak a new features in RC Too solve a bug with the filesystem that people in the wild were hitting. Like how Linus has said in the past with how there is a blurry line between security fixes and bug fixes. There is a blurry line between filesystem bugs and recovery features. If you read the email it is clear that the full feature has more work needed and this is more of a basic implementation to address bugs that people hit in the wild.
ranger_danger 1y ago
[flagged]
- koverstreet 1y ago
  You think I have an alt with higher karma than my actual account? :)

wavemode 1y ago

You still seem to be arguing that, shipping the change was the "right" thing to do. But that's not what's in dispute. Rather it is that, if what you think is right and what the person who makes the rules thinks is right are in disagreement, the adult thing to do is not to simply disregard the rules (and certainly not repeatedly, after being warned not to). This is the difference between being smart and being wise. If the goal of all this grandstanding was that, it's so incredibly and vitally important for these patches to get into the kernel, well guess what, now due to all this drama this part of the kernel is going to go unmaintained entirely. Is that good for the users? Did that help our stated goal in any way? No.

charcircuit 1y ago
>the adult thing to do is not to simply disregard the rules The adult thing is to do best by the users. Critical file system bugs are worth blocking the release of any serious operating system in the real world as there is serious user impact. >Is that good for the users? I think it's complicated. It could allow for a faster release schedule for bug fixes which can allow for addressing file system issues faster.
- nirava 1y ago
  > The adult thing is to do best by the users Best by users in the long term is predictable processes. "RC = pure bug fixes" is a battle tested, dependable rule, absence of which causes chaos. > Critical file system bugs are worth blocking the release "Experimental" label EXACTLY to prevent this stuff from blocking release. Do you not know that bcachefs is experimental? This is an example of another rule which helps predictability.
  - charcircuit 1y ago
    This was a bug fix. My point is that there will always be bugs in the kernel so not all bugs are worth blocking a release, but losing data is worth blocking the release for. >"Experimental" label EXACTLY to prevent this stuff from blocking release In practice bcachefs is used in production with real users. If the experimental label prevents critical bug fixes from making it into the kernel then it would be better to just remove that label.
    - motorest 1y ago
      > This was a bug fix. I'm not sure exactly what you are talking about, and I'm not sure you do either. The discussion that preceded bcachefs to be dropped from the Linux kernel mainline involved an attempt to sneak a new features in RC, sidestepping testing and QA work, which was followed up by yet more egregious behavior from the mantainer. https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-616-Bcachefs-Late-Feature https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-616-Bcachefs-Late-Featur...
      - charcircuit 1y ago
        >sneak a new features in RC Too solve a bug with the filesystem that people in the wild were hitting. Like how Linus has said in the past with how there is a blurry line between security fixes and bug fixes. There is a blurry line between filesystem bugs and recovery features. If you read the email it is clear that the full feature has more work needed and this is more of a basic implementation to address bugs that people hit in the wild.

ranger_danger 1y ago

[flagged]

koverstreet 1y ago
You think I have an alt with higher karma than my actual account? :)