On 5/16/22 11:36 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 03:26:04PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: ... >> Did _anyone_ actually compare the group.list output before and after >> applying the patch? ... > I Am Not A Happy Camper. ... And this whole thing has made me Very Sad. Everybody's trying to do the right thing here. Darrick's original patch tried to ease maintainer burden with group file conflicts. Dave's patch tried to speed it up. Zorro reviewed it, cycled it through for-next and landed it in main in a timely manner. A problem or two remained, and now everybody's... angry. Of course. Can we try to just show a little more grace here? Assume good intent? Interpret things as charitably as possible? Voice concerns calmly, and hear them nondefensively? Accept that mistakes will happen, fix them, and move forward? It would go a long ways to making this all a lot more fun. I'm coming at this without most of the technical context or background for these changes. All of the issues raised seem reasonable to me: slowing down "make" has some drawbacks. Special requirements on lines of bash has drawbacks too. None of this is insurmountable. Document the specialness in the template. Make the parsing more robust, or make it fail in a more obvious way. Spend time on yet another approach to generate group files efficiently, if that's worth it ... I dunno. But we've got to be able to get through relatively minor issues like this without tempers flaring, it's just not worth it. It's not my intent to take sides or point fingers in this particular exchange, it's just that this dynamic has played out too many times recently, and I really wish we could collectively do better. It's not good for us as individuals or as a community. -Eric
