From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans Reiser Subject: Re: reiser acceptance (was Re: Atomic filesystem or not) Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 01:08:33 -0700 Message-ID: <40FF7601.9070509@namesys.com> References: <200407151434.23082.marcel@hilzinger.hu> <200407151354.47063.ctpm@ist.utl.pt> <40F6DE4A.2070103@slaphack.com> <40F6E06B.1080505@namesys.com> <40F73370.2090600@slaphack.com> <40FB876E.1050200@namesys.com> <40FC3730.80908@slaphack.com> <20040720065253.GW4990@nysv.org> <40FCCC4F.6040709@slaphack.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <40FCCC4F.6040709@slaphack.com> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format="flowed" To: David Masover Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Markus_T=F6rnqvist?= , Claudio Martins , reiserfs-list@namesys.com, Marcel Hilzinger David Masover wrote: > > > Markus T=F6rnqvist wrote: > | On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 04:03:44PM -0500, David Masover wrote: > | > | But hopefully sys_reiser4 will be the standard, yes? > | (Also, rename it to sys_reiser, the number makes it a bit more unclear, > | more bound to the fs, not to the guy behind it) > > How many versions of Reiser will there be? One every 3-5 years for ~30 years. > If you can get a separate > system call for each one, go for it. Then you can always support > sys_reiser4 on newer versions, and people use sys_reiser5 and so on to > support newer features. That was the idea. > > Unless, that is, you've already made it so modular that people who call > sys_reiser on reiser4 won't find it broken on reiser5. If you can do > that without cruft, you are amazing, and the number should go. I am not amazing, and prefer to keep the number.;-)