From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Masover Subject: Re: reiser4 plugins Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 03:00:44 -0500 Message-ID: <42BE60AC.9090604@slaphack.com> References: <200506240241.j5O2f1eb005609@laptop11.inf.utfsm.cl> <42BCD93B.7030608@slaphack.com> <200506251420.j5PEKce4006891@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <42BDA377.6070303@slaphack.com> <200506252031.j5PKVb4Y004482@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <42BDC422.6020401@namesys.com> <42BE3645.4070806@cisco.com> <42BE3A90.1090403@slaphack.com> <42BE5492.4030903@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <42BE5492.4030903@cisco.com> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Lincoln Dale Cc: Hans Reiser , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, Horst von Brand , Jeff Garzik , Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ReiserFS List -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Lincoln Dale wrote: > David Masover wrote: > >> Ok, I'll bite. Hans put it best a moment ago: >> >> > [..] > > you seem to have some misconceived notion that this is somehow a > "ReiserFS versus XFS" or "ReiserFS versus ext3" case. > l-k could do without those conspiracy theories. lets just stick to the > facts. erm, let me take a peek at what you just chopped out. Yeah. Um. I mention XFS and ext3 *once* in the whole message. As an example of filesystems in general, because the only other two I'd consider (or ever use) for a desktop FS at this point is XFS or ext3. And it was a hypothetical opinion (I don't really know if / how much Hans feels that way), and I personally find it far easier to believe that there are stubborn people or that there isn't enough communication of facts than that there is actually some anti-reiser conspiracy. So, my mistake for trying to speak for other people. >> No, as a user, I just want a working plugin architecture to play with >> (I'm not *just* a user), and a working Reiser4 'cause it's fast, and I >> am eager to see new improvements coming out of Namesys, instead of two >> years spent trying to keep up with the vanilla kernel *and* adapt to >> some unspecified, possibly unneccessary, decree of a benevolent dictator. [...] > but just don't have the false expectation that just because something is > 'kool' that its going to get into the kernel without rigorous peer > review & approval I don't, actually. I did expect the peer review to be a little more efficient, less confrontational, and (maybe) more fair. But I'm actually a bit content right now. After all, I *am* running reiser4 on two of the three machines I maintain at home. And, if you scroll up a bit, at this point I just want this resolved. I don't particularly care if Hans decides to just keep maintaining a patchset, although I would be happier if it got into the mainstream kernel -- I wouldn't have to wait as long to install each new 2.6.11 or 2.6.12 + nvidia module. But this is a lot of time and energy from a lot of people on both sides who I would rather see working on something else. I appologize for the tone of that, too. I know you don't work for me... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQIVAwUBQr5gq3gHNmZLgCUhAQLgixAAgC1WTVa8+6wP3CbCJafz4V5+f/hcJkuG xtXeh/CPvN4FzRRu+UjDVgji6yrLQ9AxFOa9kg9iJzZLIDDUNKu6UvFe+j22Mmpv F/24aLD8NAtF4JNGOJv6xFZtwk03N8Q92+CU0b5jPEViom2h55OkKfSIzoGz47Ee 45XGDx0v2LCHVG+HhVuG3EVQNjI4oBiwQteErHjmoNcvh7npkbdYGvEHRULgX3rO eCals0WPCQ+A10xDoTll6NvqEU59aHeheDw+FBkCZw4GhGaSCdZn0q8EHqqTdufL iU5z/Q6J98KvjeMdhlCW8QRWA+hSIwQJcn+09IzI2lT4QnpPDRTeX3NxsdCrVbLu fg37+d46cfWNrXpIrm3SoaTMl5GGvGGTekD46deTtotbJ40fSXGv3FbB6KCFK04s U6kjfnqO8fFG/iKWExCqts6HUPiboI/zpz8w/oL7XudJO/jxKavKQGk+POCFquyT U2e7KvZig5Ct0aunlIec7NrrRbutfYU6TFlYYRlV6XmIDP29ZDtqN9DsIBEvSeP5 7RFs4r0nTaIj17mpWmX5XCaLGNSUqzsQ1bzIoAl/D8NzbRTD9dsukvZyz5lW7tiZ zsWe4mHtJrZ1/mQf/oCj36FXID+bd3xN0WGIjli5gzMjCK8uCkS09MQ+JeLGQHES M/wMDcMcrwE= =3y4o -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----