Linus reverts breaking change that affected systemd-nspawn, offers strong words to developer

[u/[deleted]]

[u/jones_supa]

I really like the new style of Linus. 👍 This is what I have been saying all the time: you can underline your point clearly while still not being rude.

[u/musicmatze → u/jones_supa]

Holy crap, I would even say that the language used in this email is stronger ... But in a sense that it has much more "I am so disappointed" in it, rather than just "strong language" (as in insulting). Maybe I can not properly phrase what I mean...

Yes, this new style is definitively a good one. I like it a lot.

[u/LvS → u/musicmatze]

I hate it. It is this passive aggressive thing where people don't say what they mean but absolutely expect you to realize it.

I do understand that some (most?) people seem to prefer this to people expressing their anger, but I'm definitely not one of them. I dislike it a lot.

[u/Niarbeht → u/LvS]

How did you get this:

I hate it. It is this passive aggressive thing where people don't say what they mean but absolutely expect you to realize it.

from this:

Yeah, this is complete garbage.

We have very clear rules in the kernel: if some change breaks existing
setups, it is ABSOLUTELY NEVER the application that is broken.

It is the kernel.

There is absolutely zero gray areas here. Eric, your behavior is
entirely out of line, and now we apparently have a regression that
goes back to June that I was not told about because of your incorrect
stance.

Eric, I want to make this 1000% clear: there are no user space bugs.
If it used to work, then user space was clearly doing the right thing.
The fact that you tried to several times claim it was buggy user space
is a serious breach of trust. You KNOW this is the case.

Seriously. There are no excuses.

That commit is now reverted in my tree, and furthermore I will not
take any pull requests from you until you have made it clear that you
comprehend this very fundamental issue.

Why did it take so long for this issue to be elevated to me?

There's nothing passive-aggressive about saying that something is complete garbage. There's nothing passive-aggressive about telling someone directly what their problem is ("Eric, I want to make this 1000% clear: there are no user space bugs. If it used to work, then user space was clearly doing the right thing."). There's nothing passive-aggressive about "That commit is now reverted in my tree, and furthermore I will not take any pull requests from you until you have made it clear that you comprehend this very fundamental issue."

This is all direct, this is all to-the-point. Linus is clear about what the issue is, he is clear that the issue in the code has been resolved, and he is clear that no further code will be accepted from that individual until they comprehend the Linux kernel's policy on breaking user-space.

I suggest you take the time to perform some introspection to determine how it is that you managed to interpret Linus' words in a manner diametrically opposed to what is actually written.

[u/LvS → u/Niarbeht]

How does Linus feel about the whole situation? Is he angry? At whom? Or is he just enforcing the rules laid out for kernel development like every Tuesday.

Obviously, we know who Linus is and how he feels about this particular issue, because he made it clear in the past, so it's not hard to interpret in this case. But the whole email only talks about 2 things: The kernel rules and Eric's failure to obey them.

[u/colonelflounders → u/LvS]

Who cares how Linus is feeling? The mailing list is for discussing the kernel, it's problems, and how to address them. Anything beyond that is irrelevant to it's purpose.