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

[Panix]

Some troll on here - challenged me on the political bent of the CoC - or rather, the allegations or complaints about the CoC - which implied this is ALL NEWS to him - I will not name him - and I am not sure if anyone shares his confusion. But, the audacity to be that dense or unaware - if you are going to discuss the topic, you must have heard SOMETHING along the lines of this allegation of political overtones and political envelope that the CoC is said to be operating on?

But, okay, let's assume for a second, that one is that dense and totally ignorant - and they have never heard of this in their life - even though, they are engaged in the discussion.
Well, here you go - takes about 1-2 min - to find these articles - and info..... probably many more sources out there that discuss it - along these lines:

https://itsfoss.com/linux-code-of-conduct/

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42221564

https://medium.com/@StephenLynx/the-dynamics-behind-the-linux-coc-adoption-fb1a2adca0f6

The 2nd site is a bit convoluted - but, it's a bunch of ppl criticizing the CoC, too.

[Panix]

IT'S OFFICIAL

BcacheFS has been banned for the 6.13 cycle. That will teach him manners for not apologizing for answering in kind to an insult! Even most countrie's criminal law recognizes that using force against an attacker is not a crime, but in CoC kernel land it's verboten.

Only ones that suffer are people that uses bcachefs. And possibly the pace of development and employment opportunities in open osurce if this cuckery scares away potential funding for additional developers. Kent has crowdsourced funding.

Ppl who don't want to be intimidated by the CoC also suffer, though.

[Panix]

"Bickering" is a word that can mean many things. As others have said a healthy debate is a good thing. However based on my experience Kent's interactions with others are far beyond what is normal or what is healthy for a team. Very, very few people I've seen in my 30+ years in the industry are as "bad" as Kent. In the real business world (and the Linux kernel is the real world now) such people are very rare because they eventually have to be fired. I live in Silicon Valley and here there is an serious shortage of capable developers. So every now and then you'll see a company try to keep one of these extremely difficult people around if they can write good code but it never seems to work long term. I myself almost hired one once but my team overrode me because it was obvious to them from the interviews the person would be impossible to work with. I myself am more of an optimist and I hoped we could teach him to be a team player but the team was probably right.

What these people can't seem to understand that in software we solve complex problems where there is no single "right" solution. There are many solutions each with their own set of advantages and disadvantages. Different developers, depending on their experience, will gravitate to different solutions based on their own internal logic. But this personality type cannot understand that just because their experience causes them to latch onto a particular solution doesn't make it the one true solution. They simply can't understand that other people's logic and experience might be equally valid. To them everything is a binary choice: right or wrong and the solution they came up with is always the right one because they only value their own logic and not anyone else's.

People often compare Linus (or the old Linus) to Kent because Linus occasionally used to interact almost as poorly with others (it was never the norm with Linus). In my opinion it's a bad comparison. Linus, even at the beginning of Linux, has always accepted that other people's solutions might be better than the one he came up with. In fact, Linus was downright self-deprecating at times. I think that's a very large part of the reason for Linux's immense success: Linus is able to subjugate his ego and empower others and their competing ideas in a way that Kent seemingly cannot or will not.



I think the purpose of CoCs is to have basic rules to make sure that some people don't (purposefully or not) interact in a way that hinders the success of others. Many organizations will have such rules for practical reasons; an environment which makes it harder to retain some talent or for them to be successful hinders the success of the organization as a whole.

And some organizations will have such rules for moral reasons; they want to instill a certain cooperative culture and sense of community in the workplace (which can also facilitate the success of the organization) that reflects the leadership's view of a good environment for people to be happy.



You can't just say something like that with absolutely nothing to back it up. Cite specifics and explain the logic that makes you think that.



That's their job. The entire purpose of the CoC is to focus on behavior. The technical discussions have nothing to do with it. I don't believe in criticizing people for doing their job even if I don't like it.



Even if that were true so what? Linus & Co. control kernel development in Linus' kernel tree and they can run their project however they want. Welcome to the real world. And they don't need an excuse; they can oust bcachefs any time they want. In my opinion the only reason they haven't already done so is that they are trying really, really hard to be as fair, as accommodating and as inclusive as possible.



(First a small nit: software engineers don't consider themselves "IT." At least not around here. Some would probably consider being called that a borderline insult. Development and IT are two entirely different things with different skill sets.)

What evidence do you have that this has anything at all to do with politics? I see nothing to suggest that. I think you are seeing things that are not there or have a vastly different definition of "politics" than I do.



What are you talking about? I've never said anything like that! I'm personally not a fan of public apology rules because I think their benefits are marginal at best and they can feel too much like a public shaming which I don't think is constructive. However, if that's part of the groups' rules then Kent needs to follow it if he wants to be part of the group. No one is forcing Kent to be a kernel developer and Kent doesn't want to follow their rules he is free to take his ball and go home. Kent is even free to maintain his own kernel fork with his own set of rules as others have done for years with great success.

Go troll someone else! It takes not even 2 min to answer your own questions - but, I am not wasting my time on trolls. Idiot. What audacity to ask such STUPID QUESTIONS. Either you already know and just want to troll or you are a brainwashed fool.

[User29]

The point is that every month now there is a discussion about this developer and if this happens I don't think it's the world's fault, but only his.
Reading that he is the one being targeted reminds me of when I went to school and to justify my behavior I said that I was being targeted, but it wasn't like that, I was the idiot.

Oops, quite a mature post.

Let me please remind you, we don't do that here.

[woddy]

The point is that every month now there is a discussion about this developer and if this happens I don't think it's the world's fault, but only his.
Reading that he is the one being targeted reminds me of when I went to school and to justify my behavior I said that I was being targeted, but it wasn't like that, I was the idiot.

[gotar]

features like compression, tiering, power loss resiliency and encryption which are generally things that only enthusiasts on their personal computers care about.
[...]
COW performs poorly.

This actually is my point, as btrfs is used as default, generic filesystem in various distros, pretending it's fine for lusers.
So what's going on here? There is a need for snapshots and LVM snapshots are relatively hard to manage.

You can say that, but if you're using one of these filesystems for your multiple disk and or logical volume layers (i.e., Zvols on ZFS) then your VM images are on a filesystem whether you realize it or not. It doesn't matter if you use flat files over NFS or Zvols over iSCSI. That's just the nature of the beast.

That's exactly why I have LVM underneath. I carve fs-less volumes for VMs and have unified lowest-level management (LVM).
With all the bells and whistles (integrity, encryption keys, RAID) adjustable per volume. At the cost of huge overall management burden.
Bcachefs, delivering what's primised, should reduce the latter by half. BTRFS could do this as well - after updating on-disk format and including encryption...

[mobadboy]

But would you think it?

And if so, do you realise that that is the problem CoC is trying (and failing) to address. The problem is not the behaviour, it is the attitudes. CoCs are built on the assumption that if you force people to appear nice, they will eventually be nice. Instead, you end up with behaviour that follows the CoC to the letter, but is designed to mess with other people. Those who are good at it, do well (especially sociopaths), those who aren't, don't. And it is mostly 'techies' that tend to be less good at dealing with complex interpersonal relations and politics and the interplay between them (excuse the broad brush - I know there are exceptions).


If you have knowledge of the reported teachings of Jesus, then what is reported on adultery makes this clear- Matthew 5:27-28:


the point being that under the laws of the Old Testament, adultery was illegal, and there was much interpretation about what counted as actual adultery, Jesus is reported as pointing out that what was important was the thought, not the act. You don't need to believe in a god, or if Jesus existed to understand the point that the transgression is the thought, not the deed. Legally, it is the requirement for a mens rea. The old way was: just because you were found in a room with a potential sexual partner, both naked, doesn't necessarily mean you were being adulterous, especially if there was no coitus. Jesus way was: what were you thinking? God knows.

Hence, we get thought crimes - wrong thinking.

Logic chopping behaviour to see it was in accordance with the CoC or not is not helpful.

Sometimes it is very difficult to tell the difference between insulting language used between friends and close colleagues, and actual insults; especially in emails. For some people, using language that appears insulting to others is their social norm. Calling someone 'an idiot' or a 'dumbass' is just their individual sociolect's way of saying 'I believe you are incorrect', or 'I am surprised that you appear to find this difficult to understand'. Of course, sometimes people are just expressing their anger in an uncontrolled manner, and perhaps need to go on an anger management/dissipation course.

The Code of Conduct Committee (CoCC) are not in parental authority or a private police force. If some people have had a public disagreement, but now have come to an agreement, I think the CoCC should let sleeping dogs lie. Praise public behaviour in accordance with the agreed rules, forgive the past transgressions. If sanctions are considered appropriate (and a forced public 'apology' is one), then the sanction should be voted upon by the kernel developers - giving the committee the power, alone, to judge what sanctions are necessary and then enforce them, is a recipe for trouble.

meaningless word salad which accomplishes nothing and just enables shitty people

who cares what i think if i act respectfully? its that easy. its really NOT HARD to just not be a dick in a professional environment. there are many things you do not say else you are going to have problems.

none of this nonsense you wrote

its pretty interesting to me how the most biggoted, shitty people i know are christians. not a single christian alive would be respected by the christians of jesuses day. you pick and choose nonsense to fit your agenda.

[clipcarl]

IT'S OFFICIAL

BcacheFS has been banned for the 6.13 cycle. That will teach him manners for not apologizing for answering in kind to an insult! Even most countrie's criminal law recognizes that using force against an attacker is not a crime, but in CoC kernel land it's verboten.

Only ones that suffer are people that uses bcachefs. And possibly the pace of development and employment opportunities in open osurce if this cuckery scares away potential funding for additional developers. Kent has crowdsourced funding.

Oh, please. Stop being so dramatic and your analogy is absolutely ridiculous.

[clipcarl]

Fair enough. But, would you agree with my opinion - that programmers and coders - especially those involved in Linux - at least, the big names and those who maintain the kernel - and on down - many of these are always bickering and insulting each other?

"Bickering" is a word that can mean many things. As others have said a healthy debate is a good thing. However based on my experience Kent's interactions with others are far beyond what is normal or what is healthy for a team. Very, very few people I've seen in my 30+ years in the industry are as "bad" as Kent. In the real business world (and the Linux kernel is the real world now) such people are very rare because they eventually have to be fired. I live in Silicon Valley and here there is an serious shortage of capable developers. So every now and then you'll see a company try to keep one of these extremely difficult people around if they can write good code but it never seems to work long term. I myself almost hired one once but my team overrode me because it was obvious to them from the interviews the person would be impossible to work with. I myself am more of an optimist and I hoped we could teach him to be a team player but the team was probably right.

What these people can't seem to understand that in software we solve complex problems where there is no single "right" solution. There are many solutions each with their own set of advantages and disadvantages. Different developers, depending on their experience, will gravitate to different solutions based on their own internal logic. But this personality type cannot understand that just because their experience causes them to latch onto a particular solution doesn't make it the one true solution. They simply can't understand that other people's logic and experience might be equally valid. To them everything is a binary choice: right or wrong and the solution they came up with is always the right one because they only value their own logic and not anyone else's.

People often compare Linus (or the old Linus) to Kent because Linus occasionally used to interact almost as poorly with others (it was never the norm with Linus). In my opinion it's a bad comparison. Linus, even at the beginning of Linux, has always accepted that other people's solutions might be better than the one he came up with. In fact, Linus was downright self-deprecating at times. I think that's a very large part of the reason for Linux's immense success: Linus is able to subjugate his ego and empower others and their competing ideas in a way that Kent seemingly cannot or will not.

These ppl are perfectionists (imho) - and they have egos and are very opinionated - some think they know best - and getting to agree and work together is a tough task. Perhaps, some of them decided they need a CoC - so, yes, in that respect, if that was the only motive for having it and it was only used for that task, then I would say, 'fine!'

I think the purpose of CoCs is to have basic rules to make sure that some people don't (purposefully or not) interact in a way that hinders the success of others. Many organizations will have such rules for practical reasons; an environment which makes it harder to retain some talent or for them to be successful hinders the success of the organization as a whole.

And some organizations will have such rules for moral reasons; they want to instill a certain cooperative culture and sense of community in the workplace (which can also facilitate the success of the organization) that reflects the leadership's view of a good environment for people to be happy.

But, that doesn't seem to be what the CoC is being used for - it's to push agenda(s) especially woke/political agendas and forcing ppl who have differing (political opinions and ideas) to adhere to whatever the ones who run the CoC want and subscribe to.

You can't just say something like that with absolutely nothing to back it up. Cite specifics and explain the logic that makes you think that.

...
The problem is these CoC ppl and others have concentrated too much on KO's behavior...

That's their job. The entire purpose of the CoC is to focus on behavior. The technical discussions have nothing to do with it. I don't believe in criticizing people for doing their job even if I don't like it.

... and the 'apology' I think is not just about his individual comments to that one guy. I believe they don't like what other things he's said and believes - I bet they are well aware of his behavior and character and think if they provoke him enough - he'll say things in which they can pursue ousting him altogether.

Even if that were true so what? Linus & Co. control kernel development in Linus' kernel tree and they can run their project however they want. Welcome to the real world. And they don't need an excuse; they can oust bcachefs any time they want. In my opinion the only reason they haven't already done so is that they are trying really, really hard to be as fair, as accommodating and as inclusive as possible.

It seems in the IT world - if you don't conform and adhere to the same politics, they try to cancel you or are so strict on your work - that they fault you for anything - the other thing regarding this is they want rigid rules and not everyone is good at following them - which this guy supposedly isn't. So, if they don't like his politics - they can probably 'squeeze these rules' even more - find where he's vulnerable and then get rid of him.

(First a small nit: software engineers don't consider themselves "IT." At least not around here. Some would probably consider being called that a borderline insult. Development and IT are two entirely different things with different skill sets.)

What evidence do you have that this has anything at all to do with politics? I see nothing to suggest that. I think you are seeing things that are not there or have a vastly different definition of "politics" than I do.

I can't see why else you would be so obsessed about him apologizing ...

What are you talking about? I've never said anything like that! I'm personally not a fan of public apology rules because I think their benefits are marginal at best and they can feel too much like a public shaming which I don't think is constructive. However, if that's part of the groups' rules then Kent needs to follow it if he wants to be part of the group. No one is forcing Kent to be a kernel developer and Kent doesn't want to follow their rules he is free to take his ball and go home. Kent is even free to maintain his own kernel fork with his own set of rules as others have done for years with great success.

[lyamc]

We all know you are just upset you can't write then n-word. That is really all it's about when people like you make up some bullshit outrage about free speech.

Maybe you should just try to not be a biggot when you work on international projects and try to keep your petty us racism an politics out
of it.

You use words like "biggot" to replace words like "_igger". The way you look at him is exactly the same way the whites looked at the blacks.

You think you're moral and virtuous? Please.