Comment

Comment by koverstreet

Funny, because "don't break userspace" is one of the principles I've been citing.

Things always degenerate when it turns into power struggles and people are going "No, I decide!".

"Make sure thinks work" is the underlying principle, and it's based on that that the code should have been, and was merged.

But then the personality conflicts and power struggles came out, and there's no need for that.

- You don't go overriding a subsystem maintainer without a clear justification; if the patch in question has a good reason for being there and can't affect the rest of the kernel, there's a really high bar to clear. This has been an issue for the XFS folks in the past.

- We have to be able to have technical and policy discussions without it degenerating into "I don't trust you and you need therapy". That's just childish. The private discussions got really ugly on this one.

And, regarding bcachefs still being marked as experimental: I'm being much more conservative with the experimental label than btrfs or ext4 were. Your data is safer on bcachefs than btrfs, today: you're not going to lose a filesystem, repair is thorough and robust and complete.

You may still hit hiccups, which is why the experimental label is there, but robust and complete repair and rock solid multi device have been reason enough for a lot of people to switch already.

Discussion

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton