From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.lichtvoll.de (lichtvoll.de [37.120.160.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BCD6338FB0 for ; Sat, 19 Oct 2024 08:39:15 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=37.120.160.25 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1729327159; cv=none; b=OuQm8S2RPhbdUUozyq4hcCXdLqC/eyKkqojG6aMfcivdn/apxEY3BEPnMOgN11YO5NVxw06b0yXfPh5Du6+5UkxqGL6Vog+4azVLJMbOmf4Ar48obTfRy7KsvoAAOi2nwNuIkJm94kFA4K3kWO9a2iEvy7CIHN67+gFBzqK+6Ao= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1729327159; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Y4zfvZxnvf/1alZZBIMH6ybFuyBC0AwS3TdDCBiyrxU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=WByXHTIj7w00unlyfQl1WMnYZBMqHh8CcZzqSKsf80eI+X4HxwQX59/IzOiG3slA4PRy08rT+ykCnK6JdJhdAv/CgfCo8AyGZdvqofYbo4Zqpt51jUeCtIhw6QN9Cjtwh+YumwZuc9Q5hF2s1Iq5LRGdsAcsaiC1uivyHWLPf4M= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lichtvoll.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lichtvoll.de; arc=none smtp.client-ip=37.120.160.25 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lichtvoll.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lichtvoll.de Received: from 127.0.0.1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (secp384r1) server-digest SHA384) (No client certificate requested) by mail.lichtvoll.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4917D7BCCF; Sat, 19 Oct 2024 08:31:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.lichtvoll.de; auth=pass smtp.auth=martin@lichtvoll.de smtp.mailfrom=martin@lichtvoll.de From: Martin Steigerwald To: "Carl E. Thompson" , Malte =?UTF-8?B?U2NocsO2ZGVy?= Cc: Christopher Snowhill , "linux-bcachefs@vger.kernel.org" , Kent Overstreet Subject: Re: Another bcachefs version downgrade bug Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2024 10:31:25 +0200 Message-ID: <4958287.GXAFRqVoOG@lichtvoll.de> In-Reply-To: <1af6fd38-7ecf-451a-9be3-fa7b9447fa43@tnxip.de> References: <46uitwudetmmygddpxufepddca7azsim6trqj4o2ivsccdeavz@uztkfyqtjgks> <1249157619.1105.1729296906241@mail.carlthompson.net> <1af6fd38-7ecf-451a-9be3-fa7b9447fa43@tnxip.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-bcachefs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Hi Carl, hi Malte, hi, Malte Schr=C3=B6der - 19.10.24, 10:13:08 MESZ: > On 19/10/2024 02:15, Carl E. Thompson wrote: > > If you tell me you don't want me testing bcachefs anymore it won't > > hurt my feelings and I'll respect your wishes. There are plenty of > > quality filesystems for me to use where I'll have less hassle. But > > I'd suggest to you that pushing out testers who point out bugs and > > try to offer constructive criticism isn't the best way to make > > quality software. > > I think in your case the developer of the fs is the wrong person to > complain to. The issues you are reporting have looong been fixed but > apparently your distro neglected to provide these fixes to its users. So > if you are stuck with a 6.9 series kernel, well, bcachefs was really > not ready for daily use back then. 6.11 is fine, 6.12 seems to fix the > last issue I was seeing. So I think the options you have are: get a > newer kernel and/or choose a different fs. While I certainly do not agree with Kent on everything =E2=80=93 and also n= ot with=20 the tone of some conversations =E2=80=93, I agree here about the basic situ= ation: BCacheFS is marked experimental. My take with that is: As long as it is=20 marked experimental and you like to test it and give feedback, it is=20 important to move quickly enough to new kernel versions. It was and partly= =20 still is the same with BTRFS. Developers often asked users to use a newer=20 kernel. Feedback on BCacheFS on 6.9 is quite likely not very useful to=20 Kent and other BCacheFS developers while they already work on what to=20 bring in for 6.13. It reminds me of an annoying issue with appointment reminders in KDE's=20 Plasma and one frustrated bug reporter expecting to fix the issue in the=20 version of the software it occured in. Due to the nature of the=20 implementation of restoring lost functionality the fix had some familiarity= =20 with a new feature and was more than 100 lines changed in different files.= =20 While I certainly get that it has been frustrating for the user, cause the= =20 issue was annoying for me as well=E2=80=A6 I would not expect and basically= demand=20 on how developers use their free time. Of course, Carl, in case you=20 support Kent financially regarding BCacheFS development=E2=80=A6 then that = may be a=20 bit of a different story, but once kernels are out of stable support=E2=80= =A6 I'd=20 still agree with Kent. Best, =2D-=20 Martin