linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] bcachefs

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20230708043136.xj4u7mhklpblomqd@moria.home.lan>
Date:   Sat, 8 Jul 2023 00:31:36 -0400
From:   Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
        Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-bcachefs@...r.kernel.org,
        dchinner@...hat.com, sandeen@...hat.com, tytso@....edu,
        bfoster@...hat.com, jack@...e.cz, andreas.gruenbacher@...il.com,
        peterz@...radead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        dhowells@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] bcachefs

On Sat, Jul 08, 2023 at 04:54:22AM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> 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:
> > > 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.
> 
> I don't think the lists are any better, tbh.  Yes, the LF has done a great
> job of telling people not to use "bad words" any more.  But people are
> still arseholes to each other.  They're just more subtle about it now.
> I'm not going to enumerate the ways because that's pointless.

I've long thought a more useful CoC would start with "always try to
continue the technical conversation in good faith, always try to build
off of what other people are saying; don't shut people down".

The work we do has real consequences. There are consequences for the
people doing the work, and consequences for the people that use our work
if we screw things up. Things are bound to get heated at times; that's
expected, and it's ok - as long as we can remember to keep doing the
work and pushing forward.