Linux

Thanks!

It’s not lazy to ask someone who seems to know something about the topic within a discussion thread about said topic. You know more than I do on this.

I understand how you may not want to take the time to answer someone’s question but also you could have replied with the link you eventually did instead of saying “Seriously?” Within the context of calling others lazy you could also qualify under the same term since you took the time to respond but not with the answer.

With search being what it is nowadays I wouldn’t know if I am getting a good result to find out the answer since it is of a technical and specific nature I may or may not even know if I am familiar with to begin with. It could take me much longer to figure it out, or I will give up and not be interested in finding out more about a field you seem to have an interest and knowledge about and I am demonstrating I want to know more about.

I think it is fair to ask for more information from someone who shows more expertise in the topic before searching.

I've heard about this and wanted to hear your opinion on it because you seemed to have gotten to another conclusion than I have. But it seems that you're not interested in discussing so I'm no longer interested

There's no reason to be rude and insulting. It doesn't make the other person look lazy; it just makes you look bad, especially when you end up being wrong because you didn't do any research either. The article is garbage. It's obviously written by someone who wants to talk about why they don't like bcachefs, which would be fine, but they make it look like that's why Linus wanted to remove bcachefs, which is a blatant lie.

Despite this, it has become clear that BcacheFS is rather unstable, with frequent and extensive patches being submitted to the point where [Linus Torvalds] in August of last year pushed back against it, as well as expressing regret for merging BcacheFS into mainline Linux.

But if we click on the article's own source in the quote we see the message (emphasis mine):

Yeah, no, enough is enough. The last pull was already big.

This is too big, it touches non-bcachefs stuff, and it's not even remotely some kind of regression.

At some point "fix something" just turns into development, and this is that point.

Nobody sane uses bcachefs and expects it to be stable, so every single user is an experimental site.

The bcachefs patches have become these kinds of "lots of development during the release cycles rather than before it", to the point where I'm starting to regret merging bcachefs.

If bcachefs can't work sanely within the normal upstream kernel release schedule, maybe it shouldn't be in the normal upstream kernel.

This is getting beyond ridiculous.

Stability has absolutely nothing to do with it. On the contrary, bcachefs is explicitly expected to be unstable. The entire thing is about the developer, Kent Overstreet, refusing to follow the linux development schedule and pushing features during a period where strictly bug fixes are allowed. This point is reiterated in the rest of the thread if anyone is having doubts about whether it is stated clearly enough in the above message alone.