[FYI] tux3: Core changes

[Daniel Phillips]

On Friday, July 31, 2015 3:27:12 PM PDT, David Lang wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2015, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>
>> On Friday, July 31, 2015 11:29:51 AM PDT, David Lang wrote: ...
>
> you weren't asking about any particular feature of Tux, you 
> were asking if we were still willing to push out stuff that 
> breaks for users and fix it later.

I think you left a key word out of my ask: "theoretical".

> Especially for filesystems that can loose the data of whoever 
> is using it, the answer seems to be a clear no.
>
> there may be bugs in what's pushed out that we don't know 
> about. But we don't push out potential data corruption bugs that 
> we do know about (or think we do)
>
> so if you think this should be pushed out with this known 
> corner case that's not handled properly, you have to convince 
> people that it's _so_ improbable that they shouldn't care about 
> it.

There should also be an onus on the person posing the worry
to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, which has not been
done in case we are discussing here. Note: that is a technical
assessment to which a technical response is appropriate.

I do think that we should put a cap on this fencing and make
a real effort to get Tux3 into mainline. We should at least
set a ground rule that a problem should be proved real before it
becomes a reason to derail a project in the way that our project
has been derailed. Otherwise, it's hard to see what interest is
served.

OK, lets get back to the program. I accept your assertion that
we should convince people that the issue is improbable. To do
that, I need a specific issue to address. So far, no such issue
has been provided with specificity. Do you see why this is
frustrating?

Please, community. Give us specific issues to address, or give us
some way out of this eternal limbo. Or better, lets go back to the
old way of doing things in Linux, which is what got us where we
are today. Not this.

Note: Hirofumi's email is clear, logical and speaks to the
question. This branch of the thread is largely pointless, though
it essentially says the same thing in non-technical terms. Perhaps
your next response should be to Hirofumi, and perhaps it should be
technical.

Regards,

Daniel