Re: [GIT PULL] bcachefs

[Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>]

So I'm starting to look at this because I have most other pull
requests done, and while I realize there's no universal support for it
I suspect any further changes are better done in-tree. The out-of-tree
thing has been done.

However, while I'll continue to look at it in this form, I just
realized that it's completely unacceptable for one very obvious
reason:

On Sat, 2 Sept 2023 at 20:26, Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev> wrote:
>
>   https://evilpiepirate.org/git/bcachefs.git bcachefs-for-upstream

No way am I pulling that without a signed tag and a pgp key with a
chain of trust. You've been around for long enough that having such a
key shouldn't be a problem for you, so make it happen.

There are a few other issues that I have with this, and Christoph did
mention a big one: it's not been in linux-next. I don't know why I
thought it had been, it's just such an obvious thing for any new "I
want this merged upstream" tree.

So these kinds of "I'll just ignore _all_ basic rules" kinds of issues
do annoy me.

I need to know that you understand that if you actually want this
upstream, you need to work with upstream.

That very much means *NOT* continuing this "I'll just do it my way".
You need to show that you can work with others, that you can work
within the framework of upstream, and that not every single thread you
get into becomes an argument.

This, btw, is not negotiable.  If you feel uncomfortable with that
basic notion, you had better just continue doing development outside
the main kernel tree for another decade.

The fact that I only now notice that you never submitted this to
linux-next is obviously on me. My bad.

But at the same time it worries me that it might be a sign of you just
thinking that your way is special.

                Linus