| ▲ | nextaccountic 4 days ago |
| > But there are also reasons why things are the way they are, and that is also not unreasonable. It is unreasonable if it leads to users losing data. At this point, the only reasonable thing is to either completely remove support for bcachefs or give timely fixes for critical bugs, there's no middle position that won't willfully lead to users losing their data. This used to be the default for distributions like Debian some time ago. You only supported foundational software if you were willing to also distribute critical fixes in a timely manner. If not, why bother? For all other issues, I guess we can accept that things are the way they are. |
|
| ▲ | abenga 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| > It is unreasonable if it leads to users losing data. Changing the kernel development process to allow adding new features willy-nilly late in the RC cycle will lead to much worse things than a few people using an experimental file system losing their data in the long term. The process exists for a reason, and the kernel is a massive project that includes more than just one file system, no matter how special its developers and users believe it is. |
| |
| ▲ | koverstreet 3 days ago | parent [-] | | There's no need for kernel development process to change. New features go in during RCs all the time, it's always just a risk vs. reward calculation, and I'm more conservative with what I send outside the merge window that a lot of subsystems. This blowup was entirely unnecessary. |
|
|
| ▲ | rwmj 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Not too familiar with the kernel process for this, but for Linux distros there are ways to respond to critical issues including data corruption and data loss. It's just that you have to follow their processes to do this, such as producing a minimal patch that fixes the problem which is backported into the older code base (and there's a reason for that too: end users don't want churn on their installed systems, they want an install to be stable and predictable). Since distros are how you ultimately get your code into users' hands, it's really their way or the highway. Telling the distros they are wrong isn't going to go well. |
| |
| ▲ | nextaccountic 3 days ago | parent [-] | | For the Debian thing, I'm not sure on the specifics for bcachefs-progs (I'm going by what the author is reporting and some blog posts) but I think the problem with Debian is that they willfully ignore when upstream says "this is only compatible with this library version 2.1.x" and will downgrade or upgrade the library into not supported versions, to match the versions used in other programs already packaged. This kind of thing can introduce subtle, hard to debug bugs. It's a mess and problems are usually reported to upstream, that's a recurrent problem for Rust programs packaged in Debian. Rust absolutely isn't this language where if it compiles, it works, no matter how much people think otherwise. And this is happening even though it's common for Debian to package the same C library multiple times, like, libfuse2 and libfuse3. This could be done for Rust libraries if they wanted to. Anyway see the discussion and the relevant article here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41407768 and https://jonathancarter.org/2024/08/29/orphaning-bcachefs-too... | | |
| ▲ | rwmj 3 days ago | parent [-] | | But that's exactly the point here. In the context of a whole distribution, you don't want to update some package to a new version (on a stable branch), because that would affect lots of other packages that depended on that one. It may even be that other packages cannot work with the new updated dependency. Even if they can, end users don't want versions to change greatly (again, along a stable branch). Upstreams should accept this reality and ensure they support the older libraries as far as possible. Or they can deny reality and then we get into this situation. And carrying multiple versions is problematic too as it causes increased burdens for the downstream maintainers. I'd argue that libfuse is a bit of a special case since the API between 2 & 3 changed substantially, and not all dependencies have moved to version 3 (or can move, since if you move the v3 then you break on other platforms like BSD and macOS that still only support the v2 API). Rust and especially Golang are both a massive pile of instability because the developers don't seem to understand that long term stable APIs are a benefit. You have to put in a bit of care and attention rather than always chasing the new thing and bundling everything. | | |
|
|
