From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Steve Long <slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Hi!
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 08:02:36 +0100
Message-ID: <200808240802.36586.slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk>
References: <1219221805.15514.13.camel@telesto> <1219256750.7854.7.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> <f058a9c30808210347l3cd957f6lb518d884e479ad62@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Return-path: <linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <f058a9c30808210347l3cd957f6lb518d884e479ad62@mail.gmail.com>
List-ID: <linux-btrfs.vger.kernel.org>

On Thursday 21 August 2008 11:47:03 Miguel Sousa Filipe wrote:
> > Testing, discussing and reporting bugs are a great first step.
>
> One thing that I would like to see, is how btrfs behaves with eavy
> uses of version control systems like:
> - git
> - hg
>
> big repos, greps, finds, and stuff like that.
>
How about kernel compiles (cf contest)? Perhaps with pull of the tree from 
cold cache or indeed several trees.

<snip good stuff>
>    - DeviceKit.Disks support (the future is DeviceKit! :-p) ->

Oh God does it have to be? Up to users what they install, but is it really the 
job of the fs to worry about a user layer on top of a lib on top of some 
other lib, one of which hasn't even got to 1.0 release, and whose author is 
apparently fine with changing everything around on distros (after all it 
hasn't got to 1.0..) but still insistent on how everyone else should be doing 
things? Not that it's anything to do with the FS, so why should we worry 
about it?

>        -> http://hal.freedesktop.org/docs/DeviceKit/

I couldn't find anything about "Disks", which may be down to my ignorance.

>        -> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/hal/2008-May/011560.html
>        ->
*groan* "the way forward is the model where you have a policy-less privileged 
mechanism that can be controlled by an unprivileged GUI policy agent"
Some of us quite like existing Unix permissions, especially on our 2 or 3 user 
desktops, and that kind of thing has been done, eg in mandriva, for quite a 
while now. Great if that's what people are happy with (personally I think 
scrapping dcop was a *huge* mistake) but I don't want it on my system any 
more than I _have_ to, to get apps to work (which is why I love Gentoo.)

> http://gitweb.freedesktop.org/?p=DeviceKit/DeviceKit.git;a=summary - grub
> support for btrfs (read only..) :D

Great, I see that's moving quickly, no code updates in 4 months. I'm guessing 
that's not because it's a stable and mature project that doesn't need any 
more work on it..
Tell me again what this has to do with a FS in the kernel; are btrfs supposed 
to change their code in any way to work with DeviceKit?

I agree with all the other stuff you posted, so please don't take my antipathy 
toward HAL and *Kit as criticism of you.

Regards,
steveL.