At the same time I think the reasons that get stated for why more must be done before reiserfs is
added are not reasonable, and not stated in a "fix this and it will be easier to merge your code"
manner, but rather in a "you can't possibly provide value" manner, or in a "your code should stay
out until after my (or somebody's) code is written". This I object to when I read it. I think
anyone who says that there is some feature that can only be in 2.5 that reiserfs somehow can't
function without is not correct. ReiserFS is working now, and yet it is continually improving.
I understand that it really is easy to do something like accidentally leave merged in a filesystem
one was looking at. At the same time, I find it hilarious that Alan said what he did. This is
unfair of me.
reiserfs is always available on our website at http://www.devlinux.com/namesys, and anytime Linus
asks we'll give him a report on whether there are known outstanding bugs remaining that should be
fixed before inclusion. Right now we have the following issues of uncleanliness: read_inode2() and
NFS interaction. I suspect but don't know that Linus is waiting for Niel and Rik to finish their
work before he either adds reiserfs or issues 2.4.0. I don't honestly think it matters what order
he merges our work and theirs. I would like more guidance on exactly we should do in regards to
read_inode2() and NFS interaction. Do I understand correctly that the answer is just wait for Niel
to get done and help him where we can? That is what we are doing.
Hans
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/