On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 10:48:01AM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote: > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 08:46:54AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Dec 2023, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > > On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 at 16:35, Kent Overstreet <kent.overstr...@linux.dev> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Other poeple have been finding ways to contribute to the technical > > > > discussion; just calling things "ugly and broken" does not. > > > > > > Kent, calm down please. We call things "ugly and broken" all the > > > time. That's just an opinion, you are free to argue it, and no need > > > to take it personally. > > > > But maybe we shouldn't. Maybe we should focus on saying what, exactly, > > is unpleasant to look at and way. Or what exactly causes poor > > funcationality. > > I said it's "ugly" and I doubted it's value. I didn't call it "broken".
I see where you took that from. To be clear, what I meant by broken is the device number switching that btrfs has been doing which has caused so much pain already and is at least partially responsible for this endless long discussion. I didn't mean "broken" as in the flag is broken. I acknowledge that I failed to make that clearer.
