So I'm starting to look at this because I have most other pull requests done, and while I realize there's no universal support for it I suspect any further changes are better done in-tree. The out-of-tree thing has been done. However, while I'll continue to look at it in this form, I just realized that it's completely unacceptable for one very obvious reason: On Sat, 2 Sept 2023 at 20:26, Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > https://evilpiepirate.org/git/bcachefs.git bcachefs-for-upstream No way am I pulling that without a signed tag and a pgp key with a chain of trust. You've been around for long enough that having such a key shouldn't be a problem for you, so make it happen. There are a few other issues that I have with this, and Christoph did mention a big one: it's not been in linux-next. I don't know why I thought it had been, it's just such an obvious thing for any new "I want this merged upstream" tree. So these kinds of "I'll just ignore _all_ basic rules" kinds of issues do annoy me. I need to know that you understand that if you actually want this upstream, you need to work with upstream. That very much means *NOT* continuing this "I'll just do it my way". You need to show that you can work with others, that you can work within the framework of upstream, and that not every single thread you get into becomes an argument. This, btw, is not negotiable. If you feel uncomfortable with that basic notion, you had better just continue doing development outside the main kernel tree for another decade. The fact that I only now notice that you never submitted this to linux-next is obviously on me. My bad. But at the same time it worries me that it might be a sign of you just thinking that your way is special. Linus
