Re: [PATCH][2/2] SquashFS

[Mws <mws@twisted-brains.org>]

Pavel Machek wrote:

>Hi!
>
>[I'm not sure if I should further feed the trolls.]
>  
>
>>>Yes, it *is* rather unfair. Sorry about that. But having 2 different
>>>limited compressed filesystems in kernel does not seem good to me.
>>>      
>>>
>
>  
>
>>what do you need e.g. reiserfs 4 for? or jfs? or xfs? does not ext2/3 
>>the journalling job also?
>>is there really a need for cifs and samba and ncpfs and nfs v3 and nfs 
>>v4? why?
>>    
>>
>
>Take a look at debate that preceded xfs merge. And btw reiserfs4 is
>*not* merged.
>
>And people merging xfs/reiserfs4/etc did address problems pointed out
>in their code.
>								Pavel
>  
>
i do not know if i act like a troll - i think a troll is something 
totally different.

yes of course i know xfs or e.g. the kernel version named debate. but - 
seriously - is it worth spending
so many time to discuss instead of just fixing the code meanwhile?
that is the main problem also in some other open source projects.
discussing instead of developing - not really efficient.

ps. FYI no, i am not a troll, and i am also taking part in some open 
source projects contributing code.

regards
marcel