Re: reiser4 inclusion?

[Christian Stroetmann OntoLab <stroetmann@ontolab.com>]

Dear Arend;
You wrote
> Christian Stroetmann OntoLab wrote:
>   
>> Dear Christian;
>> You wrote:
>>     
>>> Guys,
>>>
>>> I did NOT intend to start (yet another) /flamewar/ about the pros and
>>> cons of this filesystem. I was really only wondering about the
>>> showstoppers left (i.e. code to fix) before this could be included. I
>>> still imagine that having a (halfway current) TODO list of things
>>> would help a lot here. The KernelJanitors/Todo list looks like a sane
>>> example of what I meant to have.
>>> Bashing around about "renaming the filesystem" and "unfriendly
>>> developers" is not what I consider helpful on this particular matter.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Christian.
>>>   
>>>       
>> It seems to be, that we're running in circles since 2 or 3 years.
>>     
>
> A complaint about running around in circles is not a showstopper that
> blocks inclusion. Renaming "Reiser4" to "OntoFs"  doesn't help either. A
> good Todo list would really be helpful to  keep track of the status, to
> trigger feature implementation and/or bug fixes, and to have discussions
> about content, not procedures.
>
> Regards,
>
> Arend
I would like to encourage everybody interested in this subject to first 
read the reiserfs-devel mailing-list and my website concerning the R4 
filesystem entirely and carefully. If it is helpful and still not clear 
what is going on, I'm also willing to write a list of the steps that 
have happened.

Sincerely
Christian *<:o)