From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org-S261641AbVGKLQ2@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S261641AbVGKLQ2 (ORCPT <rfc822;willy@w.ods.org>);
	Mon, 11 Jul 2005 07:16:28 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261643AbVGKLQ2
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Mon, 11 Jul 2005 07:16:28 -0400
Received: from aeimail.aei.ca ([206.123.6.84]:46566 "EHLO aeimail.aei.ca")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261641AbVGKLQX (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 11 Jul 2005 07:16:23 -0400
From: Ed Tomlinson <tomlins@cam.org>
Organization: me
To: Ed Cogburn <edcogburn@hotpop.com>
Subject: Re: reiser4 vs politics: linux misses out again
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 07:09:46 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.8.1
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <200507100510.j6A5ATun010304@laptop11.inf.utfsm.cl> <20050710202129.GA3550@mail> <dascln$lq3$1@sea.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <dascln$lq3$1@sea.gmane.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200507110709.47180.tomlins@cam.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Sunday 10 July 2005 20:01, Ed Cogburn wrote:
> Jim Crilly wrote:
> 
> > But in most of the changesets on the bkbits site you can go back over 2
> > years and not see anything from namesys people. Nearly all of the fixes 
> > commited in the past 2-3 years are from SuSe.

With Chris Mason's name attached?  Chris wrote the journaling support for R3
and worked for SUSE for a while (he may still?).   I also remember seeing quite
a few patches run though the reiser mailing list for comment...
  
> So, for the sake of argument, if IBM were to drop official support for JFS,
> we'd yank JFS out of the kernel even if there was someone else willing to
> support it?  Why does it now *matter* who supports it, as long as its being
> maintained?  And will we now block IBM's hypothetical JFS2 from the kernel
> if IBM, from the programmers up to the CEO, doesn't swear on their momma's
> grave that they'll continue to support JFS1, even if JFS1 is being
> supported by others?  Jeez, this is why it doesn't take a kernel dev to see
> the problems here, common sense seems to be an increasingly rare ingredient
> in these arguments against R4.  If I didn't know better, I'd think you were
> making this stuff up as you went along....