Bcachefs Changes Rejected Reportedly Due To CoC, Kernel Future "Uncertain"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • browseria
    Senior Member
    • Apr 2018
    • 155

    Originally posted by Old Grouch View Post
    Referring your peers to previous discussions without giving links is plain rude. It is actually dismissing your peer by valuing their time less than your own. That is being egotistical.
    1000 x this (and the rest of this post). Exactly spot on 100% correct.

    Comment

    • TheMightyBuzzard
      Senior Member
      • Sep 2021
      • 425

      Let's get to the core of this here. Emotional fragility is not a virtue or even neutral, it is a failing. Pandering to it only subsidizes failure (which creates more of it as subsidies always do) and diminishes humanity.

      Beyond that, a CoC removes logic and common sense from decision making and replaces them with arbitrary bureaucracy. That makes them idiotic at best with self-destructive being far more likely.

      Comment

      • TheMightyBuzzard
        Senior Member
        • Sep 2021
        • 425

        Originally posted by browseria View Post

        1000 x this (and the rest of this post). Exactly spot on 100% correct.
        I'm actually fine with that. It's annoying but I can relate quite well with not caring enough to hunt it up myself. You have to be okay with the flip side of that though; you no longer get argument points for whatever you referenced.

        Comment

        • JMB9
          Senior Member
          • Mar 2016
          • 233

          From my point of view the kernel community should welcome developers and work with them.
          Expelling them like some Russian developers just for being of that nationality is crime!
          And several journalists caimed that several expelled people are not on any of those black lists.
          This should be clearly discussed to be prapered for the next nation which is not to the liking of the USA
          putting companies of black lists.
          I am not against those black lists at all - but there must be substance to this.
          And from GKH with Backing of LBT was really ugly ... and putting hatred between nation into play
          is not good in an international environment. This was really stupid - but I can understand it.
          One must fate the one hatred ...

          And Kent Overstreet may not be the best team player - but after all I read here he is respected
          (also by its users) for his work to create a stable file system - which is still in experimental state.
          For such an FS it should be possible to get big patches in if it is clear that no other kernel domain
          is involved - creating patches to make a problem slightly better is the same shit we all suffer from
          HW mitigations - which is absolutely not acceptable for a FS.
          It is the same logic as new deviced get support even after the last rc - as there are no regressions.
          For for experimental and isolated parts this shoud be true, too.
          Otherwise I would wish to get reasons why there is a difference.

          The list of problems with BTEFS is endless ... and still alarming. XFS with a lot of code or
          ZFS with no suitable license are Frankenstein systems - and those three are the choice of
          the big companies involved with Linux distributions.
          So having a ripe FS would be nice.
          I am oldschool - but worked 10 years in IT industry - I currently only trust ext4 - and working with
          entire backups and even incremental backups when changes were frequently.

          So for me this a a big crisis of the Linux kernel community and should be solved in the open
          with all stakeholfers and participants involved.

          As a scientist and Unix specialist - all what I read is sad - no proof of adding backdoors, faking achnoledgements
          of maintainers, writing bad code, ... reasons everyone would understand someone revoked from the
          kernel commuity. Maybe other reasons can be thought of - and collected to make the decisions transparent.
          For me this is like kindergarten - where someone is boss and is allowed to do anything.

          And there should be clear rules for the kernel - we have seen mitigations pressed in the kernel (without
          another rc round) and this was ok ... I personally don't think so.
          And now an experimental FS is not allowed to solve problems real users do have ...
          So what is "experiental" stand for ??? What is the definitions for improvements and sending in patches?

          I want to see technical discussions - no wining "the don't like me" - and real progress and understanding.
          If things are set in stone - and the kernel community is happy whith these settings - I want to see a file/website
          where these things are fixed - so just point in "4.6 in document" in a mailing list and all can say "ok, this is best
          practises and should be done that way" ... so not fullfilling means could not be merged. No problem.
          After 3rd merge try of same sort saying: Please stop to disrespect kernel community rules ...
          or you must leave the kernel (maybe with 1 or up to 3 warnings).
          It must be clear - or a lot people may regard themselves 3rd class participants ... which is not nice.

          Currently it looks for me like some people change the rules for the kernel community deliberately.

          And using COC to get a not welcomed but good contributor out of the kernel community
          would be disgusting. So there should be substance - and this is not there if some people
          change the rules while playing the game.

          If this is done that way, ther kernel could lose a lot of good maintainers and contributors.
          This will harm the entire IT ... so now is the time to set it straight - hopefully once and for all!

          Comment

          • fitzie
            Senior Member
            • May 2012
            • 672

            Originally posted by browseria View Post

            What you are describing is not what happened in _this_ thread. In _this_ case, I believe Kent believes he made a good argument as to why the status quo was subpar. He got back NOTHING (or very little public) in response. He followed the rules, and his PR was rejected. In discussing the rejection, things got a little heated and he said some things he shouldn't have. So did the other side. They made up and then the CoC came down like a hammer.

            Here's the clue to who is at fault: the first rule when you have a losing argument is to attack the messenger and not the message. All I see in this thread is people attacking Kent for this or that perceived grievance, but I don't see anyone talking about the substance of his argument. Why is that?
            it's clearly because kent's conduct violates the CoC. now I will state that having caught up on the recent threads the CoC enforcers are in fact political wokies, and their approach to enforcement is total BS as it only seeks to address the tone of conversation on mailing lists, and not the well functioning of the community. But even though the CoC is itself flawed doesn't mean that it isn't clear on what it considered enforcement worthy action.

            That is a correction from my previous update, and i do agree that kent is being railroaded by this enforcement action, however, it's because he's acting hot headed. If he could separate the idea of addressing the bad community interaction that his mm/block contributions have received from addressing him crossing the line in terms of personal attacks, there's a clear path forward, but in every instance he shows that he's not willing to do that. so he's in a chinese finger trap of his own making. kent could make every single point he's making if he were just able to say the tone of his response violates the coc, and that any disagreements he has with other maintainers even if justified doesn't warrant said abuse.

            Comment

            • User29
              Senior Member
              • Dec 2023
              • 253

              Originally posted by cb88 View Post
              Linus needs to be able to say shut the fuck up again.
              he should have 3-4 STFU cards in each year and it's up to him to play them out anytime he wants.

              Comment

              • mobadboy
                Senior Member
                • Jul 2024
                • 178

                are you all dumb?

                the reason a public apology is required is to discourage people from taking this as an example. today, kent says it, not a big deal in isolation, but then tomorrow someone else who saw no repercussions for that post then does the same thing. its just common sense LOL

                its also basic human decency to apologize. if you say something like that in public, you apologize in public.

                "waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah i make bcache so i no apowogize !!!! wahahhhhhhhhhhhh!!!! i go make public post!!! not my fauwt!!!! make sure to include no hate toward peowple i am cawwing out so i keep get patreon wahhhhhhhh!!!!!"

                thats how it reads

                if refusing to apologize wasnt enough, kent goes and makes that post which has most definitely resulted in hate mail being sent toward the people in question. expect a removal of bcachefs within hours/days. why not just be a decent human being? is it really too hard? i guess so!

                fucking children
                Last edited by mobadboy; 21 November 2024, 11:44 AM.

                Comment

                • TheMightyBuzzard
                  Senior Member
                  • Sep 2021
                  • 425

                  Originally posted by mobadboy View Post
                  are you all dumb?

                  the reason a public apology is required is to discourage people from taking this as an example. today, kent says it, not a big deal in isolation, but then tomorrow someone else who saw no repercussions for that post then does the same thing. its just common sense LOL

                  its also basic human decency to apologize. if you say something like that in public, you apologize in public.

                  "waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah i make bcache so i no apowogize !!!! wahahhhhhhhhhhhh!!!! i go make public post!!! not my fauwt!!!! make sure to include no hate toward peowple i am cawwing out so i keep get patreon wahhhhhhhh!!!!!"

                  thats how it reads

                  if refusing to apologize wasnt enough, kent goes and makes that post which has most definitely resulted in hate mail being sent toward the people in question. expect a removal of bcachefs within hours/days. why not just be a decent human being? is it really too hard? i guess so!

                  fucking children
                  They deserve hate mail. Bureaucrats enforcing idiotic and arbitrary rules should be hated.

                  Comment

                  • User29
                    Senior Member
                    • Dec 2023
                    • 253

                    Originally posted by avis
                    This is why Linux will forever remain marginal unusable crap.​
                    c'mon clown, what the hell are you doing here with your countless alteregos? Feeling lonely, banned even from facebook or what?

                    Linux for some reasons attracts the most vindictive hateful asocial people who are willing to destroy anyone who is "bad" for their toy.
                    it's clear that you haven't even worked at big companies, never interacted professionally with a lot of other people and you haven't seen internal bigcorp communication.

                    it's totally the same, the only thing is that internal mails from meta, google, ms and the others won't hit public so you don't have a clue what's going on there. also you don't have the slightest idea what's behind each technical decision, you just got the product and the happy marketing announcements.

                    Comment

                    • irusensei
                      Junior Member
                      • Aug 2024
                      • 8

                      From the perspective of a user/consumer of this project I don't care if you put the mean developer into the re-education camp but rejecting good patches because of this is a huge red flag.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X