From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261877AbTLCUzd (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2003 15:55:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261881AbTLCUzd (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2003 15:55:33 -0500 Received: from tmr-02.dsl.thebiz.net ([216.238.38.204]:7179 "EHLO gatekeeper.tmr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261877AbTLCUzZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2003 15:55:25 -0500 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Path: gatekeeper.tmr.com!davidsen From: davidsen@tmr.com (bill davidsen) Newsgroups: mail.linux-kernel Subject: Re: XFS for 2.4 Date: 3 Dec 2003 20:44:15 GMT Organization: TMR Associates, Schenectady NY Message-ID: References: <2D92FEBFD3BE1346A6C397223A8DD3FC0924C8@THOR.goeci.com> <20031202180251.GB17045@work.bitmover.com> X-Trace: gatekeeper.tmr.com 1070484255 20002 192.168.12.62 (3 Dec 2003 20:44:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@tmr.com Originator: davidsen@gatekeeper.tmr.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In article <20031202180251.GB17045@work.bitmover.com>, Larry McVoy wrote: | On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 12:45:38PM -0500, Murthy Kambhampaty wrote: | > If you can't come up with something more concrete than "I don't like your | > coding style" and "I'm not sure your patch won't break something", it seems | > only fair you take the XFS patches. | | Not your call, it's Marcelo's call. And I and he have both suggested | that the way to get XFS in is to have someone with some clout in the file | system area agree that it is fine. It's a perfectly reasonable request | and the longer it goes unanswered the less likely it is that XFS will get | integrated. The fact that $XFS_USER wants it in is $XFS_USER's problem. | $VFS_MAINTAINER needs to say "hey, this looks good, what's the fuss about?" | and I suspect that Marcelo would be more interested. Linus accepted it for 2.6, does it need to be blessed by the Pope, or what? | | It is not, however, any more my call to make than it is your call to make. | We're not doing Marcelo's job. | | It is also not unreasonable to reject a set of changes right before | freezing 2.4. 2.4 is supposed to be dead. Add XFS and what's next? | Who's pet feature needs to go in? Now that is bullshit and you know it! This is not a pet feature, this is code which has has been stable for years. There just aren't any other candidates, all the other FS stuff went in with less testing and have fewer users now (JFS as example). This is also not code offered "right before a freeze" this code has been offered version by version for two bleepin' years, has it not? There's no slippery slope, there are no other major features which have proven long-term stability. Fell free to name them if I'm wrong... Marcelo admits he doesn't like the coding style, he has the right to keep out anything he doesn't like, but let's not invent other reasons. It's his call and he made it. It's a pity he didn't make the call earlier and save people the effort, though. -- bill davidsen CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.