[ralferoo]

Perhaps you might enlighten me how it's "very clear" from my opening paragraph that I don't understand the thread. Granted, the initial post could be interpreted a number of different says, but having read the whole thread, I think I have a pretty good understanding of the intent. But clearly, you have a different interpretation, so please - enlighten me to your way of thinking.

Taken at it's most charitable, the opening of the first message "no more bug reports related to the disk accounting rewrite, things are looking good over here as far as regressions go" would suggest a meaning of "there are no significant bugs, the changes below are optional".

The next section in the change description then says that this fixes a number of very serious bugs. Straight away, I can see the potential for an interpretation difference. Is it "heads up, no changes required" or "these fixes are critical"?

He's told "no" by Linus, for reasons that seem to correlate with what I said (unless you'd like to point out in what way I don't understand the thread), and then rather than saying "yeah, then can wait until the next stable branch", he doubled down on the importance of getting these changes in and basically saying that the rules should only apply to everyone else and not him because he knows that there won't be any new bugs because of $REASONS. $REASONS that didn't apply when the bugs were introduced. $REASONS that include automated testing, but that didn't find these bugs originally.

The thread (which apparently I don't understand) contains a perfect summary from Linus himself: "But it doesn't even change the issue: you aren't fixing a regression, you are doing new development to fix some old probl;em, and now you are literally editing non-bcachefs files too."

All this for some changes to a system that he's actively discouraging people from using because it's not production ready anyway, and so none of these bug fixes are actually critical for right now.

It's good he ultimately backs down, but he should never have been pushing for these changes this late in the stable branch timeline anyway.

So, that's my understanding of the thread. I'd be interested to hear how your understanding of the thread is so radically different from that.

[Arch-TK]

> enlighten me

Fundamentally on the whole I don't think most of your interpretation is comment worthy. (To clarify, I don't think its particularly objectionable following from the premise in your opening paragraph.) But...

> in the stable branch timeline

Again. Like I outlined in my initial reply. This has nothing to do with stable. I don't know why you keep talking about stable.

The discussion is about bleeding edge mainline Linux. It's clear to me because:

* It is a PR for Linus. I don't know enough about stable to know if they use PRs but most stable stuff I do know about involves marking patches for stable on the specific mailing lists oriented around stable.

* Linus doesn't handle stable.

* Linus and Kent are taking about the merge window and Kent submitting non-regression fixing patches after it. This doesn't make any sense if it was in a stable context. The process is different.

* If this was stable the discussion would be with GKH.

So, your comment is based on the premise of this being a discussion surrounding stable. It's not, so I don't know what to make of the rest of your comment on the basis of this incorrect premise.

[ralferoo]

> So, your comment is based on the premise of this being a discussion surrounding stable. It's not, so I don't know what to make of the rest of your comment on the basis of this incorrect premise.

The repo is literally called "linux-stable-rc"

It wasn't an incorrect premise, just incorrect terminology. Sorry, my bad, I shouldn't have referred to it prematurely as "stable" when it is just undergoing the process of stabilization.

> > in the stable branch timeline

> This has nothing to do with stable. I don't know why you keep talking about stable.

Yes, technically, this isn't officially called "stable" until after the last release candidate, however every release candidate should be considered as an attempt to create the stable release (although pragmatically, nobody expects the first few to have had enough testing to surface all the bugs that are likely to show up) and I don't think it's particularly egregious to talk about this change in the context of the stable branch timeline as -rc releases are just as much part of the timeline as the initial stable release and the later point releases.

For context, this change was being requested for inclusion in -rc6, which was over 4 weeks after the merge window ended. This very well could end up being promoted to the stable release if no more significant bugs are found. There is no way a change of this complexity should have been accepted, and when Linus pointed that out, Kent shouldn't have been arguing about it at all, instead he should have just waited to get it merged into 6.12 as he originally intended.

> The discussion is about bleeding edge mainline Linux.

Yes, it's mainline, but also "bleeding edge" is kind of a misnomer, as it hadn't been accepting feature changes and was in stabilization for producing stable release candidates for a month already, and by that point would have had significant testing.

Sorry for causing confusion my referring to it prematurely as "stable". I don't look at the kernel all that often, and we use a different process with different terminology in our environment. We keep mainline open all the time for ongoing feature work, fork that to "stable" which only accepts bug-fixes and from that we periodically create release candidates which get released for testing and possibly get relabeled as the actual release. Sorry I was still thinking in that mindset when I replied and didn't properly map the concepts back to those used in the kernel.

[Arch-TK]

> The repo is literally called "linux-stable-rc"

It's not? What repo? The only two repos which are involved are https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/lin... which is mainline (implicitly) which is where these patches would land and git://evilpiepirate.org/bcachefs.git which is the source repo for the PR. The only branches being referenced are "master" (implicitly) for mainline and the tag "bcachefs-2024-08-23".

Regardless, to respond to the rest of your comment:

The reasons for why Linus is rejecting the change have nothing to do with the stable process and everything to do with the set release process. The mainline merge window opens, you (not you specifically unless you are a subsystem maintainer, if you want to contribute a patch as a non-maintainer, the process is completely separate and goes via the subsystem maintainers) submit features and bug fixes, the merge window closes, somewhere in the ballpark of 7 release candidates happen, and it's released as mainline. The goal of the RCs is to incorporate subsequent waves of fixes for any regressions introduced specifically by the bug fixes and new features.

Kent is claiming that, because he himself implements effectively an equivalently rigorous (according to him) feature testing and stabilisation process that his patches which do not fix regressions introduced by previous patches submitted during the merge window, but which do fix some real bugs, should be accepted outside the merge window.

In the past, Linus has let it slide, and he has also let it slide this time too: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/lin... . Linus is just asking Kent to stop doing this as he doesn't want to keep giving him special treatment.

[ralferoo]

> It's not? What repo?

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux...

[Arch-TK]

Yes I can imagine there are a bunch of repos with "stable" in their name in git.kernel.org but where did you find a reference to this repo in that thread?

There are repos on git.kernel.org for microemacs, that doesn't mean this thread relates to microemacs.