Re: [2.6] Most likely to be merged by Halloween... THE LIST

[Daniel Phillips <phillips@arcor.de>]

On Monday 22 July 2002 12:23, Joe Thornber wrote:
> It would be good if other volume managers embrace device-mapper
> allowing us to work together on the kernel side, and compete in
> userland.  Kernel development takes *far* too much manpower for us to
> be duplicating work.

Competition has its own benefits.

> For example I released the LVM2 vs EVMS snapshot
> benchmarks in the hope of encouraging EVMS to move over to
> device-mapper, unfortunately 2 months later a reply is posted stating
> that they have now developed equivalent (but broken) code :(

Supposing both device-mapper and (the kernel part of) EVMS get into the tree, 
there's nothing stopping you from submitting a patch to make EVMS use 
device-mapper.  If there's already equivalent code in EVMS, that just makes 
the job easier.

I'm firmly in the 'we need both' camp.

EVMS is a full-bloated^W blown enterprise solution, ready to go with every
imaginable bell and whistle.  Device-mapper represents the classic Linux 
minimalist approach.  Hopefully, with the two side-by-side in the tree, both 
will evolve more rapidly.

-- 
Daniel