Just alone the fact that you as number one submitter of LVM-bugfixes since
at least 0.8 do not get CVS write access is a sign of closedness for me.
But we discussed that on the sistina list.
> Yes, the no-possible-harm patches like man pages
> went in, but not other stuff. Also, it doesn't appear that any of the
> LVM changes are making it into the stock kernel, which is basically a
> recepie for disaster.
100% True. A few days ago I looke at the LVM patches to see what parts
of it could be fed to Linus in small pieces - but it's such a _huge_
mixture of bugfixes, cleanups and move-arounds that it looks pretty
much impossible.
> Basically, I'm at the point where trying to create clean patches from my
> LVM source tree to apply to CVS is so much work it is hardly worth it.
IMHO wou should just put _your_ tree on a sever and submit it (in pieces)
to Linus. AFAIK all serious users of LVM have used you're patched versions.
Maybe openlvm is a good hood for such a project?
> I'm seriously looking at devoting the time I used to spend on LVM to the
> EVMS project instead. They (appear to) have in-kernel LVM support working
> already, so no user tools needed for VG/LV activation. Granted, they don't
> yet have tools to create/modify VG/LVs, but I think I can help them there.
Yes - when looking at what code they produces it looks a _lot_ cleaner than
Linux-LVM and while the papers had serious signs of Overengeering the
actual code looks very good to me - it could just get a little better
integrated with the main kernel, but that's a 2.5 issue.
Christoph
-- Of course it doesn't work. We've performed a software upgrade. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/