From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>
Subject: Re: reiser4 went into -mm
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 11:08:04 -0700
Message-ID: <41263E04.6030009@namesys.com>
References: <41259F3B.1020802@namesys.com> <20040820083144.GM1284@nysv.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <reiserfs-list-return-20438-reiserfs=m.gmane.org@namesys.com>
list-help: <mailto:reiserfs-list-help@namesys.com>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:reiserfs-list-unsubscribe@namesys.com>
list-post: <mailto:reiserfs-list@namesys.com>
Errors-To: flx@namesys.com
In-Reply-To: <20040820083144.GM1284@nysv.org>
List-Id: <reiserfs-devel.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format="flowed"
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Markus_T=F6rnqvist?= <mjt@nysv.org>
Cc: ReiserFS List <reiserfs-list@namesys.com>

Markus T=F6rnqvist wrote:

>On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 11:50:35PM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
>
> =20
>
>>Of course, we still need to get to where we have been in -mm and there=20
>>have been no valid bug reports for a week before I think we can ask to=20
>>go into the official kernel.....
>>   =20
>>
>
>What does this mean for the future of Reiser4 development?
>
>Still going to have auto-snapshots against the -mm kernels where
>Reiser4 is merged?
>
>I hope so, but I'd also tend to use the vanilla -mm trees unless/until
>there is a bug I stumble upon and only then look to the auto-snapshots
>for a solution. Is this a good method?
>
>Seems to me that's the most realistic method now, as the new users will
>just stick with -mm :)
>
> =20
>
Yes, use -mm, we will send our fixes into -mm.

Hans