> it doesn't really communicate why Kent's actions are problematic
I agree that the kernel community can be a hostile environment.
Though I’d argue that people _have_ tried to explain things to Kent, multiple times. At least a few have been calm, respectful attempts.
Sadly, Kent responds to everything in an email except the key part that is being pointed out to him (usually his behavior). Or deflects by going on the attack. And generally refuses to apologise.
Definitely not saying that the problems are all on one side here. Agreed that going on the attack was bad (as well as dumb).
I just think that while, yes, the kernel folks have tried to explain, they didn't explain well. The "why" of it is a people thing. Linus needs to be able to trust that people he's delegated some authority will respect its limits. The maintainers need to be able to trust that each other maintainer will respect the area that they have been delegated authority over. I think that Kent genuinely doesn't get this.
> Sadly, Kent responds to everything in an email except the key part that is being pointed out to him (usually his behavior).
Behaviour sounds like the least important part of code contributions. I smell overpowered, should've-been-a-kindergarten-teacher code of conduct person overreach.
No. As someone who likes bcachefs and even literally donates to Kent's patreon, the way he has gone about engaging with the kernel community is not productive. Unfortunately.
CoC isn't even the issue, he constantly breaks kernel development rules relating to the actual code, then starts arguments with everyone up to and including Linus when he gets called out, and aggressively misses the point every time. Then starts the same argument all over again 6 weeks later.
And, like, if you don't like some rules, then you can have that discussion, but submitting patches you know will be rejected and then re-litigating your dislike of the rules is a waste of everyone's time.
I think it is partly about code of conduct issues[0]. I totally agree that Linus can run whatever release process he likes, and Overbeck should get in line with that. However all of the accompanying sighing at how many times we've had to explain things to him from others is not okay. So what if more discussion is needed or wanted? People doing difficult work might have strong opinions. People doing easy work (e.g. sending code of conduct emails) should not have an equal weight to their opinions, if any at all.
No, Kent has generally had a nice tone. The issue is that he has repeatedly violated the rules about code contributions. For example by including new features together with several bug-fixes during rc. That is not a CoC issue, it is not respecting the rules of patch submission and not respecting the time of the kernel maintainers.
I agree that is a problem, but the main thing the eye-rolling posts seem to be about is CoC stuff, real or imaginary.
Example of eye-rolling post, above:
> Sadly, Kent responds to everything in an email except the key part that is being pointed out to him (usually his behavior). Or deflects by going on the attack. And generally refuses to apologise.
And there's an email thread linked somewhere here where a CoC member repeatedly replies to Kent's emails with demands for a formal apology. All of this soft, subtle stuff adds up to an impression in people's heads, even though the main output of these projects should be highly complex software, and not bike-shedding email mediation.
I agree that the kernel community can be a hostile environment.
Though I’d argue that people _have_ tried to explain things to Kent, multiple times. At least a few have been calm, respectful attempts.
Sadly, Kent responds to everything in an email except the key part that is being pointed out to him (usually his behavior). Or deflects by going on the attack. And generally refuses to apologise.