Thanks, I've been struggling to put this into words.

When you're working on the core technology we all depend on, correctness is not optional.

Linux is not correct. Linux has never been correct. Linux will never be correct. An incorrect belief that it is correct can only make it less correct.

You must know this when it comes to your own work. Why isn't bcachefs written in augmented rust with dependent types and formal correctness proofs for every line of code? How could there ever be a data losing bug if you had a formal proof that the file system could never lose data? Wouldn't that be more correct?

Turns out when some strong/broad notion of correctness isn't (practically) possible it is, in fact, very optional.

Good project management is all about managing resources and balancing tradeoffs. Sometimes this means making or allowing some things to be worse for the benefit of something else or in adherence to a process with a proven track record. Almost every choice makes something less correct than it could be-- with a goal of slowly inching towards a more perfect state overall in the long run.

It's also beneficial to rock the boat a bit at times, people can be wrong, processes can need improvement-- but there is a correct level, timing, and approach to achieve the best benefit. I expect that the kind of absolute approach you seem to have adopted in comments is unlikely to be successful at effective beneficial change.

▲

quotemstr 3 days ago | parent [-]

You're staking out quite the postmodernist position there. All models are wrong, so who's to say that Alice's data corruption is worse than Bob's man page typo? The important thing is we stick to process with a proven track record, right?

I don't buy it. Object level considerations do matter. Alice's bug really is worse than Bob's. That "proven track record" shouldn't apply to Alice, and insisting that it does for the sake of process, in a way indifferent to the facts of the situation, is just a pretext for doing primate social hierarchy deference rituals in a situation in which they're producing a worse outcome and everyone knows it.

▲

nullc 3 days ago | parent [-]

> Object level considerations do matter.

They do. And Kent expressed them and the linux kernel maintainers are amply qualified to hear out and make a call. I don't see a reason to think they were indifferent to the facts, they just weren't convinced by them. If they were they could have just said, "okay we think that this does qualify as a bugfix".

My understanding is the change in dispute wasn't over fixing the corruption introducing bug, but rather adding automated repair for cases where the corruption had already happened. I could easy see taking a position of "sad for people who are already corrupt, they can get their work around out of tree for now" (or heck, even forever depending on the scale of the impact).

Anyone who has been around for a while has seen their share of 'ate the horse to catch the spider to catch the fly to...' dance, of course the patch author is convinced that their repair is correct. They're almost always convinced of that or they don't submit it, so that carries little information. Because of this there is a strong preference for obviously minimal code in any kind of fix. Minimizing user suffering is important, but we also know every line of code comes with risk. The fact that the risk is not measurable on a case by case basis doesn't make it any less real.

	▲	quotemstr 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Thanks for the thoughtful reply. > I don't see a reason to think they were indifferent to the facts I don't think the Linux people thought of themselves as indifferent to facts. Nor do I think they were, not at first. Most people imagine themselves as fair-minded truth-seekers. When stakes are low, they usually act like it. It's only under pressure that people reveal whether they're more committed to PR or progress. The shitty thing about this situation is that as the dispute escalated, the technical merits of change faded from relevance. (Linus even pulled the corruption repair work in the end!) The argument transformed into a dispute over power, pride, and personalities. Linus's commitment to technical excellence was tested. It failed. Consequently, Linux will lack a cutting-edge filesystem. I don't even object to Linus being BDFL of Linux. Somebody has to make decisions. I think Linus was wrong to reject the corruption fix patch, but he could plausibly have been right. He had an opportunity to explain his patch rejection in such a way that Overstreet would have understood it as final but also felt heard and valued. Overstreet would have been upset, and justifiably so, but by the next merge window both sides would have cooled down and progress would have resumed. It's when Linus banned Overstreet and bcachefs from the project that he departed irrecoverably from defensibility. Linus might think he's punishing Overstreet for his intransigence by blocking his work, but Linus is actually taking his frustration out on every Linux user instead. Overstreet's ban is rooted in primate power psychology, not technical trade-offs, and it makes everyone lose. Technical leaders who ostracize brilliant but difficult people forever cap the amount of progress we can make in the fight against the limits of nature. They're neglecting their responsibilities as leaders to harness difficult people. It's not an easy job, but being a leader shouldn't be. Linus took the easy way out and banned the brilliant troublemaker. He should be ashamed. > the risk is not measurable on a case by case basis It often is. That's why when I'm on the Linus side of a case like this, I try to avoid saying "no" and instead say "yes, if". Sometimes my counterparty pulls out an "if" that convinces me.