Subject: [bug#45692] [PATCH 0/3] Better Support for ZFS on Guix

From: Liliana Marie Prikler <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 09:24:05 +0100

Hi raid5,

Am Freitag, dem 18.02.2022 um 07:13 +0000 schrieb raid5atemyhomework:
> Modified so it applies cleanly to origin/master.
> 
> PLEASE JUST REVIEW AND MERGE, WHAT IS THE PROBLEM HERE ANYWAY?
You've been begging for review for a while now, so let me inform you
that the way you've been doing this is not particularly helpful to you
or the reviewers.

First of all, your follow-up messages do not include anyone who has so
far reviewed the patch in the "To:" or "Cc:" field.  This makes it less
likely that they will actually see your message.  Secondly, the tone in
which you're asking is not nice to the reviewers.  I can understand
you're a little frustrated waiting for so long, but shouting "WHAT IS
THE PROBLEM ANYWAY?" communicates that you're both unaware of and do
not care about burdens (e.g. maintenance) that are created by your
patch.  This in turn prompts reviewers to look away; both out of spite
and in order not to deal with this mess at all.

I have no stake in ZFS and no intent to review this patch beyond this
point, but here a few questions to ask: Why is it necessary to define a
file system as a service?  Why do we need to export a seemingly
unrelated variable?  Can this be tested?  Is this sufficiently tested?
Are there any points Maxime that were drowned out by a huge wall of
licensing-related messages being passed back and forth that I will not
attempt to sift through in order to respond to this message?  If so,
have those been sufficiently addressed?

Another complicating factor for this bug in particular is that the mumi
web interface and the raw messages are out of sync; I have no idea why
that is the case, but trying to fetch a patch only to get one of your
bump messages is not particularly encouraging.

In any case, I've added Maxime to CC so they can have a closer look at
it.

Cheers