Originally posted by Old Grouch
View Post
Bcachefs Changes Rejected Reportedly Due To CoC, Kernel Future "Uncertain"
Collapse
X
-
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
-
-
Originally posted by browseria View Post
1000 x this (and the rest of this post). Exactly spot on 100% correct.
Comment
-
-
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
-
-
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?
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
-
-
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 childrenLast edited by mobadboy; 21 November 2024, 11:44 AM.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by mobadboy View Postare 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
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by avisThis is why Linux will forever remain marginal unusable crap.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 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
-
Comment