On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 08:46:54AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > On Wed, 13 Dec 2023, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 at 16:35, Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Other poeple have been finding ways to contribute to the technical > > > discussion; just calling things "ugly and broken" does not. > > > > Kent, calm down please. We call things "ugly and broken" all the > > time. That's just an opinion, you are free to argue it, and no need > > to take it personally. > > But maybe we shouldn't. Maybe we should focus on saying what, exactly, > is unpleasant to look at and way. Or what exactly causes poor > funcationality. I said it's "ugly" and I doubted it's value. I didn't call it "broken". And I've been supportive of the other parts. Yet everyone seems fine with having this spiral out of control to the point where I'm being called a dick. You hade a privat discussion on the bcachefs mailing list and it seems you expected to show up here with a complete interface that we just all pick up and merge even though this is a multi-year longstanding argument. I've been supportive of both the subvol addition to statx and the STATX_* flag to indicate a subvolume root. Yet somehow you're all extremely focussed on me disliking this flag. > "ugly" and "broken" are not particularly useful words in a technical > discussion. I understand people want to use them, but they really need > to be backed up with details. It is details that matter. I did say that I don't see the value. And it's perfectly ok for you to reiterate why it provides value. Your whole discussion has been private on some other mailing list without the relevant maintainers Cced.
