▲ | motorest 3 days ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||
> 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|