From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roland Dreier Subject: Re: Btrfs for mainline Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 14:26:34 -0800 Message-ID: References: <1230722935.4680.5.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> <20081231104533.abfb1cf9.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1230765549.7538.8.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> <87r63ljzox.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <1230924749.7538.35.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> <20090102210104.GC496@one.firstfloor.org> <1230932112.7538.82.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andi Kleen , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel , linux-btrfs To: Chris Mason Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1230932112.7538.82.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> (Chris Mason's message of "Fri, 02 Jan 2009 16:35:12 -0500") List-ID: > > > I don't disagree, please do keep in mind that I'm not suggesting anyone > > > use this in production yet. > > When it's in mainline I suspect people will start using it for that. > I think the larger question here is where we want development to happen. > I'm definitely not pretending that btrfs is perfect, but I strongly > believe that it will be a better filesystem if the development moves to > mainline where it will attract more eyeballs and more testers. One possibility would be to mimic ext4 and register the fs as "btrfsdev" until it's considered stable enough for production. I agree with the consensus that we want to use the upstream kernel as a nexus for coordinating btrfs development, so I don't think it's worth waiting a release or two to merge something. - R.