Linux CoC Announces Decision Following Recent Bcachefs Drama

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • User29
    Senior Member
    • Dec 2023
    • 248

    For all Kent defenders, this is how things should be done:

    Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite


    Comment

    • lyamc
      Senior Member
      • Jun 2020
      • 526

      Originally posted by User29 View Post
      For all Kent defenders, this is how things should be done:

      Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite

      EXT4 makes some changes to itself and it's fine, lgtm.

      Bcachefs makes a change/implements a kernel feature and it runs into a problem. Kernel maintainers get all uppity because other stuff works fine so it must be bcachefs, but then you find out that no, it's actually a problem for other ones but nothing has used it enough to really notice it.

      Comment

      • browseria
        Senior Member
        • Apr 2018
        • 154

        Originally posted by User29 View Post
        For all Kent defenders, this is how things should be done:
        Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite
        I don't get what you are saying here, bcachefs is the ONLY file system that fully supports large folios (besides AFS, XFS), with the potential of EXT4 adopting it in the near future. XFS only got done because the guy who did the yeoman's work on large folios took it upon himself to convert XFS personally. Meanwhile, you've got kernel maintainers asking things like "how long can I get away with NOT implementing large folios". What was the point you are trying to make?
        Last edited by browseria; 25 November 2024, 04:03 PM.

        Comment

        • elbci
          Junior Member
          • Nov 2024
          • 16

          Originally posted by AmericanLocomotive View Post
          If you participate in your local community gardening club, and you say "Get your head examined and get the fuck out of here with this shit" to a fellow club member when they want to plant something you don't like - you will be removed from the club or reprimanded.
          LOOOL I registered for this gem!
          That's exactly what linux has become: a gardening club for old ladies.
          0 utility for outside world users (might be some aestetics in thick bushes like KDE until the musqitos and the bugs bite)
          0 tolerance for offending the wife (systemd) of the mayor (mighty Microsoft)
          0 future prospects (the last phase of Embrace Expand Extinguish is complete as proven by "Like any other USA corporation we arbitrarily ban russians").

          In the trenches there's no such thing as COC but I'm sorry to say the war was lost long ago... Code warriors focused on technical debate rather than 'pronounsx' have no place in linux, now it's a club for corporate obedient slaves and their barren woke formalism.​

          Comment

          • clipcarl
            Junior Member
            • Nov 2023
            • 31

            Originally posted by browseria View Post
            Citation needed. Specifically, what rule(s)?
            I may be mistaken. I am assuming his ongoing refusal to apologize for violating the code of conduct up until his punishment a few days ago was itself a violation of the code of conduct. But you could reasonably argue that not apologizing isn't itself a violation of the CoC.


            Originally posted by browseria View Post
            ​You seem to be knowledgeable enough to know that by the time the merge window window starts, all development has completed. Certainly all the work that Kent had planned for 6.13 was already complete and "in the can".
            Yes, that's the way it's supposed to work. But we are not talking about the work that Kent does in his own private tree before the merge window where's he doesn't have to interact with the other Linux kernel developers. (And I say that's the way it's supposed to work because as you've acknowledged Kent has on multiple occasions violated those rules by pushing new features and changes after the merge window.) What we are talking about here are his interactions with other kernel developers as part of getting his code into the Linux kernel which doesn't happen until the merge and RC windows. Obviously the kernel's rules don't apply to his own private work done on his own before then.


            Originally posted by browseria View Post
            ​What I meant to say is yes he did break _A_ rule, but _that_ rule was modified AFTER the event had taken place ...
            The Linux CoC and its rules have NOT been modified. What was modified was a document that tries to shed light on the process that the CoC committee uses to interpret the CoC. This document exists solely to provide transparency into the process and isn't itself part of the rules.

            Originally posted by browseria View Post
            ​​... and appears to have been retroactively applied for the express purpose of punishing one individual ...

            That seems to be a sick, twisted way to interpret things. Since long before any of this the Linux kernel CoC has specifically said that the powers that be have to right to ban, temporarily or permanently, any contributors who violate the rules. That language was not added for Kent or for this situation. The CoC itself specifies banning as a punishment which can be meted out to individuals who break the rules.

            What was added to the interpretation document is a way for some offenders to avoid being banned by apologizing for their infraction. You seem to believe that Kent being offered an alternative to being banned (an alternative that others in the past may not have gotten) is itself somehow unfair and unjust. Can you explain that logic?

            Originally posted by browseria View Post
            ​​​... at a time when the situation no longer existed, it had already been resolved privately.
            ​​
            As many others have pointed out these rules are to create an environment where everyone can feel welcome and work efficiently. It isn't about only these two specific individuals. So whether or not the two of them are OK with it doesn't give them the right to subject everyone else to it.

            Originally posted by browseria View Post
            ​​​Of course, it takes two to tango, so why this rule was applied to only one person is suspect.
            That's a fair question. Obviously, what the two of them said was different. It could be that only what Kent said was deemed to cross the line.

            And let's be honest: Kent is the problem child here and has been since long before this specific interaction. Sometimes interacting with a problem child can cause others to behave poorly. In order to be truly fair people in charge need to recognize that.

            If you really want an answer to this question you could send a polite reply to the CoC announcement email asking it.

            Comment

            • fotomar
              Phoronix Member
              • Jun 2024
              • 95

              Originally posted by clipcarl View Post

              If you really want an answer to this question you could send a polite reply to the CoC announcement email asking it.
              Anyone engaging with the bureaucracy, deserves the bureaucracy.

              These people are not our friends and should be repudiated at every turn.

              Comment

              • lyamc
                Senior Member
                • Jun 2020
                • 526

                Here's another recent example of said bureaucracy

                Andrew Tomazos, a long-time contributor to the ISO C++ standards committee, recently published a technical paper titled The Undefined Behavior Question . The paper explores the semantics of undefined behavior in C++ and examines this topic in the context of related research. However, controversy ar...


                Comment

                • browseria
                  Senior Member
                  • Apr 2018
                  • 154

                  Originally posted by clipcarl View Post
                  ...The Linux CoC and its rules have NOT been modified. What was modified was a document that tries to shed light on the process that the CoC committee uses to interpret the CoC. This document exists solely to provide transparency into the process and isn't itself part of the rules.
                  ... That language was not added for Kent or for this situation. The CoC itself specifies banning as a punishment which can be meted out to individuals who break the rules.

                  What was added to the interpretation document is a way for some offenders to avoid being banned by apologizing for their infraction.

                  I went back and looked at the actual change to the text and you are correct, this was a clarification on enforcement and remediation, I don't know how I arrived at the other conclusion. Thank you for clarifying that.
                  ​​
                  Originally posted by clipcarl View Post
                  As many others have pointed out these rules are to create an environment where everyone can feel welcome and work efficiently. It isn't about only these two specific individuals. So whether or not the two of them are OK with it doesn't give them the right to subject everyone else to it.
                  This is also something I agree with.

                  Originally posted by clipcarl View Post
                  ...Kent is the problem child here and has been since long before this specific interaction. Sometimes interacting with a problem child can cause others to behave poorly. In order to be truly fair people in charge need to recognize that.

                  Here is where we split the baby. Every person has their own gifts. What Kent has in coding ability he seems to lack in interpersonal skills. But this isn't a static state of affairs. People can choose to change and behave in more socially accepted ways. What is needed by everyone is the patience and tolerance to work through these issues and get to the desired state - e.g., Linus Torvalds' change in approach. This is required by everyone in the community. We both have acknowledged issues in the past. But this is a new development cycle, its a new chance to execute better. I don't see Kent trying to get away with something here, what I see is a bad personal interaction that resulted in an unfortunate and uneven enforcement action. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Only the goose got cooked this time.

                  Originally posted by clipcarl View Post

                  If you really want an answer to this question you could send a polite reply to the CoC announcement email asking it.
                  I will await the 6.14 development cycle and see what develops. This is not a bad idea. Although I haven't personally contributed to FS of the kernel, no-one there knows me from Adam. There are, however a number of programmers I highly respect on this team, so who knows? Maybe they would be open to input from the peanut gallery. Or maybe I will take up Matthew Wilcox's call to convert a FS to large folios. We'll see what develops!


                  Edit: I just read what fotomar and lyamc posted above. And while I agree that bureaucracy is not our friends, I don't think that making them enemies will correct that. However, that post by lyamc just made my blood boil. That is thought police, and political correctness at its worst - it has no place in a technical discussion and that is what initially got me riled about this story. People's expression shouldn't be moderated unless it harms someone else, and even then there may be call to do it.
                  Last edited by browseria; 25 November 2024, 07:03 PM. Reason: Amending my last comment.

                  Comment

                  • clipcarl
                    Junior Member
                    • Nov 2023
                    • 31

                    Originally posted by lyamc View Post
                    Here's another recent example of said bureaucracy

                    Andrew Tomazos, a long-time contributor to the ISO C++ standards committee, recently published a technical paper titled The Undefined Behavior Question . The paper explores the semantics of undefined behavior in C++ and examines this topic in the context of related research. However, controversy ar...

                    Except that Slashdot article's description of what happened is pretty much completely wrong. I suggest you dig a little deeper.

                    Comment

                    • lyamc
                      Senior Member
                      • Jun 2020
                      • 526

                      Originally posted by clipcarl View Post

                      Except that Slashdot article's description of what happened is pretty much completely wrong. I suggest you dig a little deeper.
                      They offered him an ultimatum to either change the title or they would expel him.

                      Sound familiar?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X