> This was a bug fix.

I'm not sure exactly what you are talking about, and I'm not sure you do either. The discussion that preceded bcachefs to be dropped from the Linux kernel mainline involved an attempt to sneak a new features in RC, sidestepping testing and QA work, which was followed up by yet more egregious behavior from the mantainer.

https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-616-Bcachefs-Late-Featur...

▲

charcircuit 3 days ago | parent [-]

>sneak a new features in RC

Too solve a bug with the filesystem that people in the wild were hitting. Like how Linus has said in the past with how there is a blurry line between security fixes and bug fixes. There is a blurry line between filesystem bugs and recovery features.

If you read the email it is clear that the full feature has more work needed and this is more of a basic implementation to address bugs that people hit in the wild.

▲

motorest 3 days ago | parent [-]

> Too solve a bug with the filesystem that people in the wild were hitting.

So you acknowledge that this last episode involved trying to push new features into a RC.

As it was made abundantly clear, not only is the point of RC branches to only get tiny bugfixes after testing, the feature work that was presented was also untested and risked introducing major regressions.

All these red flags were repeatedly raised in the mailing list by multiple kernel maintainers. Somehow you're ignoring all the feedback and warnings and complains raised by people from Linux kernel maintainers, and instead you've opted to try to gaslight the thread.

▲

koverstreet 3 days ago | parent [-]

No, I'm sorry but you're simply wrong.

bcachefs has a ton of QA, both automated testing and a lot of testers that run my latest and I work with on a daily basis. The patch was well tested; it was for codepaths that we have good regression tests for, it was algorithmically simple, and it worked perfectly to recover a filesystem from the original bug report, and it performed flawlessly again not long after.

I've explained my testing and QA on the lists multiple times.

You, like the other kernel maintainers in that thread, are making wild assertions despite having no involvement with the project.

▲

majorchord 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

As a rule, strong feelings about issues do not emerge from deep understanding.

▲

motorest 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> No, I'm sorry but you're simply wrong.

It sounds like you have a hard time coping with reality.

https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-616-Bcachefs-Late-Featur...

I repeat: it sounds an awful lot like you are trying to gaslight this thread. Not cool.

When this fact was again explicitly pointed out to you by Linus himself, you even tried to bullshit Linus and try to move the goalpost with absurd claims about how somehow it was ok to force untested and unreviewed features into a RC because somehow you know better about what users want or need as if it was some kind of justification for you to skip testing and proper release processes.

You need to set aside some time for introspection because you sound like you are your own worst enemy. And those you interact with seem to be fed up and had enough of these stunts.

	▲	koverstreet 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		The changes weren't untested or unreviewed, and they've performed flawlessly on quite a few occasions since then. Sorry, the only person gaslighting here is you.