Re: [GIT PULL] bcachefs

Kent Overstreet
2023-07-07T16:48:23Z

On Fri, Jul 07, 2023 at 12:26:19PM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Fri, 2023-07-07 at 05:18 -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 07, 2023 at 10:48:55AM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > > > just merge it and let's move on to the next thing."
> > >
> > > "and let the block and vfs maintainers and developers deal with the
> > > fallout"
> > >
> > > is how that reads to others that deal with 65+ filesystems and
> > > counting.
> > >
> > > The offlist thread that was started by Kent before this pr was sent
> > > has seen people try to outline calmly what problems they currently
> > > still have both maintenance wise and upstreaming wise. And it seems
> > > there's just no way this can go over calmly but instead requires
> > > massive amounts of defensive pushback and grandstanding.
> > >
> > > Our main task here is to consider the concerns of people that
> > > constantly review and rework massive amounts of generic code. And I
> > > can't in good conscience see their concerns dismissed with snappy
> > > quotes.
> > >
> > > I understand the impatience, I understand the excitement, I really
> > > do. But not in this way where core people just drop off because
> > > they don't want to deal with this anymore.
> > >
> > > I've spent enough time on this thread.
> >
> > Christain, the hostility I'm reading is in your steady passive
> > aggressive accusations, and your patronizing attitude. It's not
> > professional, and it's not called for.
>
> Can you not see that saying this is a huge red flag? With you every
> disagreement becomes, as Josef said, "a hill to die on" and you then
> feel entitled to indulge in ad hominem attacks, like this, or be
> dismissive or try to bury whoever raised the objection in technical
> minutiae in the hope you can demonstrate you have a better grasp of the
> details than they do and therefore their observation shouldn't count.
>
> One of a maintainer's jobs is to nurture and build a community and
> that's especially important at the inclusion of a new feature. What
> we've seen from you implies you'd build a community of little Kents
> (basically an echo chamber of people who agree with you) and use them
> as a platform to attack any area of the kernel you didn't agree with
> technically (which, apparently, would be most of block and vfs with a
> bit of mm thrown in), leading to huge divisions and infighting. Anyone
> who had the slightest disagreement with you would be out and would
> likely behave in the same way you do now leading to internal community
> schisms and more fighting on the lists.
>
> We've spent years trying to improve the lists and make the community
> welcoming. However technically brilliant a new feature is, it can't
> come with this sort of potential for community and reputational damage.
>
> > Can we please try to stay focused on the code, and the process, and
> > the _actual_ concerns?
> >
> > In that offlist thread, I don't recall much in the way of actual,
> > concrete concerns. I do recall Christoph doing his usual schpiel; and
> > to be clear, I cut short my interactions with Christoph because in
> > nearly 15 years of kernel development he's never been anything but
> > hostile to anything I've posted, and the criticisms he posts tend to
> > be vague and unaware of the surrounding discussion, not anything
> > actionable.
>
> This too is a red flag. Working with difficult people is one of a
> maintainer's jobs as well. Christoph has done an enormous amount of
> highly productive work over the years. Sure, he's prickly and sure
> there have been fights, but everyone except you seems to manage to
> patch things up and accept his contributions. If it were just one
> personal problem it might be overlookable, but you seem to be having
> major fights with the maintainer of every subsystem you touch...

James, I will bend over backwards to work with people who will work to
continue the technical discussion.

That's what I'm here to do.

I'm going to bow out of this line of discussion on the thread. Feel free
to continue privately if you like.