←back to thread

Bcachefs may be headed out of the kernel

(lwn.net)
144 points ksec | 2 comments | 04 Jul 25 13:32 UTC | HN request time: 0.404s | source
Show context
ajb ◴[04 Jul 25 19:06 UTC] No.44467059[source]▶
Yeah.. the thing is, suppose Kent was 100% right that this needed to be merged in a bugfix phase, even though it's not a bug fix. It's still a massive trust issue that he didn't flag up that the contents of his PR was well outside the expected.

That means Linus has to check each of his PRs assuming that it might be pushing the boundaries without warning.

No amount of post hoc justification gets you that trust back, not when this has happened multiple times now.

replies(1): >>44467209 #
1. NewJazz ◴[04 Jul 25 19:29 UTC] No.44467209[source]▶
He mentioned it in his PR summary as a new option. About half of the summary of the original PR was talking about the new option and why it was important.

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/4xkggoquxqprvphz2hwnir...

replies(1): >>44467796 #
2. ajb ◴[04 Jul 25 20:51 UTC] No.44467796[source]▶
I'm not saying he made a PR just saying "Fixes" like a rookie. What I'm saying is that in there should have been something along the lines of "heads up - I know this doesn't comply with the usual process for the following commits, here's why I think they should be given a waiver under these circumstances" followed by the justifications that appeared after Linus got upset.

The PR description would have been fine - if it had been in the right stage of the process.