On Sat, Mar 08, 2025 at 04:50:05PM -0500, Kent Overstreet wrote: > On Sat, Mar 08, 2025 at 01:19:30PM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 08, 2025 at 10:50:08AM -0500, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > > So, this code clearly isn't getting tested - at all. Besides this bug, > > > the parsing for the "corrupt" modes is also broken. > > > > > > Guys, don't push broken crap, and figure out how to write some tests. > > > > Thank you sir, may we have another? > > > > Like you never introduced a bug in your life? > > > > Not going to tolerate your entitled primadonna attitude here. You are > > capable of being better, you've chosen not to be on this issue (twice) > > Talking about basic engineering standards is in no way "being a prima > donna". Testing your changes is as basic as it gets, and this code > wasn't tested _at all_. "entitled primadonna attitude" was me pulling punches. I don't disagree that this is a bug that was missed and that proper testing hasn't been performed (I'd quibble with the no testing part only because I cannot speak for Mikulas and don't like to assume I know it all). But you're missing the very problematic detail: you used a bug in an optional feature of the test-only dm-flakey target to try to take a pound of flesh while preaching from your high horse. That is unacceptable behaviour that won't be tolerated here. Be cool and others will be in return (unless you keep setting fire to bridges). Fin.
