The patch that kicked off the current conflict was the 'journal_rewind' patch; we recently (6.15) had the worst bug in the entire history upstream - it was taking out entire subvolumes.
The third report got me a metadata dump with everything I needed to debug the issue, thank god, and now we have a great deal of hardening to ensure a bug like this can never happen again. Subsequently, I wrote new repair code, which fully restored the filesystem of the 3rd user hit by the bug (first two had backups).
Linus then flipped out because it was listed as a 'feature' in the pull request; it was only listed that way to make sure that users would know about it if they were affected by the original bug and needed it. Failure to maintain your data is always a bug for a filesystem, and repair code is a bugfix.
In the private maintainer thread, and even in public, things went completely off the rails, with Linus and Ted basically asserting that they knew better than I do which bcachefs patches are regression risks (seriously), and a page and a half rant from Linus on how he doesn't trust my judgement, and a whole lot more.
There have been many repeated arguments like this over bugfixes.
The thing is, since then I started perusing pull requests from other subsystems, and it looks like I've actually been more conservative with what I consider a critical bugfix (and send outside the merge window) than other subsystems. The _only_ thing that's been out of the ordinary with bcachefs has been the volume of bugfixes - but that's exactly what you'd expect to see from a new filesystem that's stabilizing rapidly and closing out user bug reports - high volume of pure bugfixing is exactly what you want to see.
So given that, I don't think having a go-between would solve anything.
1. Regardless of whether correct or not, it's Linus that decides what's a feature and what's not in Linux. Like he has for the last however many decades. Repair code is a feature if Linus says it is a feature.
2. Being correct comes second to being agreeable in human-human interactions. For example, dunking on x file system does not work as a defense when the person opposite you is a x file system maintainer.
3. rules are rules, and generally don't have to be "correct" to be enforced in an organization
I think your perceived "unfairness" might make sense if you just thought of these things as un-workaroundable constraints, Just like the fact that SSDs wear out over time.
Prioritizing agreeableness above correctness is the reason the space shuttle Challenger blew up.
The bcachefs fracas is interesting and important because it's like a stain making some damn germ's organelles visible: it highlights a psychological division in tech and humanity in general between people who prioritize
1) deferring to authority, reading the room, knowing your place
and people who prioritize
2) insisting on your concept of excellence, standing up against a crowd, and speaking truth to power.
I am disturbed to see the weight position #1 has accumulated over the past decade or two. These people argue that Linus could be arbitrarily wrong and Overstreet arbitrarily right and it still wouldn't matter because being nice is critical to the success of a large scale project or something.
They get angry because they feel comfort in understanding their place in a social hierarchy. Attempts to upend that hierarchy in the name of what's right creates cognitive dissonance. The rule-followers feel a tension they can relieve only by ganging up and asserting "rules are rules and you need to follow them!" --- whether or not, at the object level, a) there are rules, b) the rules are beneficial, and c) whether the rules are applied consistently. a, b, and c are exactly those object-level does-the-o-ring-actually-work-when-cold considerations that the rule-following, rule-enforcing kind of person rejects in favor a reality built out of words and feelings, not works and facts.
They know it, too. They need Overstreet and other upstarts to fail: the failure legitimizes their own timid acquiescence to rules that make no sense. If other people are able to challenge rules and win, the #1 kind of person would have to ask himself serious and uncomfortable questions about what he's doing with his life.
It's easier and psychologically safer to just tear down anyone trying to do something new or different.
The thing is all technological progress depends on the #2 people winning in the end. As Feynmann talked about when diagnosing this exact phenomenon as the root cause of the Challenger disaster, mother nature (who appears to have taken on corrupting filesystems as a personal hobby of hers) does not care one bit about these word games or how nice someone is. The only thing that matters when solving a problem of technology is whether something works.
I think a lot of people in tech have entirely lost sight of this reality. I can't emphasize enough how absurd it is to state "[b]eing correct comes second to being agreeable in human-human interactions" and how dangerously anti-technology, anti-science, and-civilization, and anti-human this poison mindset is.
1. I laid down what I perceived as the state of things. The generalizations I drew from observing the system that is Linux development. Nowhere have I prescribed that kent "follow" my ideas. Simply that he can use these to try to understand the unfairness he feels.
2. Your anarcho-individualistic development ideas sound good in theory, but if they ever worked in practice we might have seen it be more widespread than it is today in team sizes > 3.
You should also note that if the oring is labelled experimental and there's an expectation of failure, it's development and testing will not stop the launch. The shuttle leaves when it leaves, it won't wait for the experimental oring to be done to your liking.
You're suggesting he deal with unfairness by internalizing it as virtue? That's how to make people who cheer at other people's failures.
> Your anarcho-individualistic development ideas sound good in theory
Thanks for illustrating my point. No project, >3 or <= 3, has ever made any new technology by adopting as a tenet that social agreement inside the project is more important than correctly modeling the world outside it, and you're suggesting I'm using inefficiently agreeable-sounding words to express it.