Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> Forcing it into the kernel to save users who are clearly not in any shape or form competent enough to partake in your experiment is definitely not part of the job.

That code needs to be there for non-experimental users later on.

The reason to push it in quickly is so it can get tested and iterated on. Saving a handful of experimental users is not the main benefit.



> Saving a handful of experimental users is not the main benefit.

Kent himself argued otherwise here[1].

And even if that were the case, there's no need to take a stand on trying to get it into the kernel. If he gets booted out of the kernel tree, then the end result is the same for his users: they have to compile their own kernel. So it makes no sense to push this so hard.

[1]: https://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/software/general-linux...


> Kent himself argued otherwise here[1].

I said "main" for a reason. The current users that need to recover data are a part of the picture, but they're a few trees out of the forest.

"Please tell that to the users who lost data." is not arguing against what I said.

> And even if that were the case, there's no need to take a stand on trying to get it into the kernel. If he gets booted out of the kernel tree, then the end result is the same for his users: they have to compile their own kernel. So it makes no sense to push this so hard.

He's not giving an ultimatum here. The goal is to figure out something that works for everyone.


> The reason to push it in quickly is so it can get tested and iterated on. Saving a handful of experimental users is not the main benefit.

Testing and iterating on code does not require making exceptions to the kernel development schedule.


He makes a pretty good argument that the filesystem's never going to get done if there's only one iteration per kernel release.

I don't know what the best solution is, but it looks like it requires either exceptions or something else that gets around the schedule.


Well... there is the merge window where this should be added and then like 8 release candidates (as always: it depends) where he can iterate on the added code. So the statement of "only one iteration per kernel release" is just categorically wrong.


"categorically wrong" is a rather uncharitable way to describe you and me using different connotations of the word "iterate". Especially when you pulled "on the added code" out of nowhere.

To stabilize the filesystem he needs to iterate on the code that has been there for a while, to add more debugging and fallbacks for error situations. In this case he wanted to add a new fallback.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2026 batch! Applications are open till July 27.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: