Re: Honest timeline for btrfsck

[Jeff Putney <jeffrey.putney@gmail.com>]

>> If your driver keeps telling you that you're going to arrive in 10
>> seconds, and it takes a child to start asking questions, maybe you
>> should pay more attention and realize you just might be gettin
>> shanghaied.
>
>
> Are you serious? How much are you paying for that ride?
>

Not really, I was trying to deflect a little ad hominem with some
levity, and pointing out some of the shortcomings of the metaphor.

> The first rule of open source software is that those who write the
> code pick the features and set the schedule.

We are talking about presently closed source and trying to get it to
be open source.  The first rule of closed source is those who own the
code get to pick who is going to write the code who pick the features
and set the schedule.

Anyone can make up an axiom and call it the first rule of something.
It doesn't make it so.

> Unless you're the one
> writing the paycheck, your recourse is to write a competitive solution.
>
> I'm with you in wanting an fsck tool, but as an open source developer,
> I'm offended by the assertion that you think you have the right to
> demand that Chris do anything.

Be  offended all you want, but characterizing people discussing how to
best change the status quo, as some sort of demand is your
contribution to the discussion, and doesn't reflect the tenor of the
conversation.

> The fact that you view Chris writing one as a deterrent for others
> writing a fsck assumes two things: that it is forthcoming and that it
> will be of better quality than your fsck solution.

No, it is the *belief* that the tool will be forthcoming that has a
deterring effect.  The tool will arrive, or not, regardless of this
belief.  It is precisely this belief that I think needs further
consideration given the past year of repeated estimates.

> If you think one or both of those things are true, then by all means,
> write your own. Write it or stop acting like you have any right to
> tell Chris what to do. Seriously.

You are the first person I recall telling anyone what to do, or making
demands in this thread.  Seriously.

Should the tool, and or source not be forthcoming, then this is
exactly what I am proposing be done.  There are very few people that
could write such a tool by themselves, and we'd still be in the same
boat of having a single point of failure.  So, I think the best
approach would be a multiple people contributing to a real open source
effort.  This type of effort is not going to be able to get underway
so long as their is a pervasive belief in the eminent release of
Chris' tool.


--jeff

> - -Jeff

>
> - --
> Jeff Mahoney
> SuSE Labs
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAk6WfZIACgkQLPWxlyuTD7KdAgCgii9e2AVQ+5MJ4cfKnI7Bumnx
> wpIAoJHYyavF27mrNu4Bb+V6kkrgouiq
> =Lhzp
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>