| ▲ | ajb 4 days ago |
| I think Kent is in the wrong here, but it really doesn't help that the kernel people from Linus on down are seemingly unable to explain the problem, and instead resort to playground insults. Apart from being unprofessional and making for a hostile work environment, it doesn't really communicate why Kent's actions are problematic, so I've some sympathy for his not believing that they are. |
|
| ▲ | arp242 4 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| People have explaining things, at great length, many times. Many of these have been posted to HN before, either as submissions or comments. Kent just does not listen. Every time the discussion starts from the top. Even if you do agree on some compromise, in a month or two he'll just do the same thing again and all the same arguments start again. You can't expect people to detail about four or five years of context in every single engagement for the benefit of interested 3rd parties like you or me. |
|
| ▲ | sevg 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > it doesn't really communicate why Kent's actions are problematic I agree that the kernel community can be a hostile environment. Though I’d argue that people _have_ tried to explain things to Kent, multiple times. At least a few have been calm, respectful attempts. Sadly, Kent responds to everything in an email except the key part that is being pointed out to him (usually his behavior). Or deflects by going on the attack. And generally refuses to apologise. |
| |
| ▲ | ajb 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Definitely not saying that the problems are all on one side here. Agreed that going on the attack was bad (as well as dumb). I just think that while, yes, the kernel folks have tried to explain, they didn't explain well. The "why" of it is a people thing. Linus needs to be able to trust that people he's delegated some authority will respect its limits. The maintainers need to be able to trust that each other maintainer will respect the area that they have been delegated authority over. I think that Kent genuinely doesn't get this. | |
| ▲ | philipallstar 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Sadly, Kent responds to everything in an email except the key part that is being pointed out to him (usually his behavior). Behaviour sounds like the least important part of code contributions. I smell overpowered, should've-been-a-kindergarten-teacher code of conduct person overreach. | | |
| ▲ | dralley 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | No. As someone who likes bcachefs and even literally donates to Kent's patreon, the way he has gone about engaging with the kernel community is not productive. Unfortunately. CoC isn't even the issue, he constantly breaks kernel development rules relating to the actual code, then starts arguments with everyone up to and including Linus when he gets called out, and aggressively misses the point every time. Then starts the same argument all over again 6 weeks later. And, like, if you don't like some rules, then you can have that discussion, but submitting patches you know will be rejected and then re-litigating your dislike of the rules is a waste of everyone's time. | | |
| ▲ | philipallstar 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I think it is partly about code of conduct issues[0]. I totally agree that Linus can run whatever release process he likes, and Overbeck should get in line with that. However all of the accompanying sighing at how many times we've had to explain things to him from others is not okay. So what if more discussion is needed or wanted? People doing difficult work might have strong opinions. People doing easy work (e.g. sending code of conduct emails) should not have an equal weight to their opinions, if any at all. [0] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/6740fc3aabec0_5eb129497@dwillia... | | |
| ▲ | ajb 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Interesting mashup there of Kent Beck and Kent Overstreet :-) | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | jeltz 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | No, Kent has generally had a nice tone. The issue is that he has repeatedly violated the rules about code contributions. For example by including new features together with several bug-fixes during rc. That is not a CoC issue, it is not respecting the rules of patch submission and not respecting the time of the kernel maintainers. | | |
| ▲ | philipallstar a day ago | parent [-] | | I agree that is a problem, but the main thing the eye-rolling posts seem to be about is CoC stuff, real or imaginary. Example of eye-rolling post, above: > Sadly, Kent responds to everything in an email except the key part that is being pointed out to him (usually his behavior). Or deflects by going on the attack. And generally refuses to apologise. And there's an email thread linked somewhere here where a CoC member repeatedly replies to Kent's emails with demands for a formal apology. All of this soft, subtle stuff adds up to an impression in people's heads, even though the main output of these projects should be highly complex software, and not bike-shedding email mediation. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | yxhuvud 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I've seen plenty of times where the problems has been explained to Kent. But he just don't give a shit about the problems of people that isn't himself or that doesn't use his file system experiences. |
| |
| ▲ | bombcar 4 days ago | parent [-] | | It seems very clear to me that it's almost always a "you can't argue canon law with the Pope" situation - the rules say no new features, and it doesn't matter what the definition of "feature" is if the definition AND the rule come from the same person, Linus. You can't win a rules-lawyer argument with the rulemaker. |
|
|
| ▲ | rob_c 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > unable to explain the problem unfortunately that's either due to lack of investigation by yourself or a bit dishonest. |
