Re: I request inclusion of reiser4 in the mainline kernel

[michael chang <thenewme91@gmail.com>]

On 9/18/05, Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@mac.com> wrote:
> On Sep 18, 2005, at 13:22:27, michael chang wrote:
> > On 9/18/05, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 01:21:23PM +0300, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> >>
> >>> This is it. I do not say "accept reiser4 NOW", I am saying "give
> >>> Hans good code review".
> >>
> >> that and there's much more exciting filesystems like ocfs2 around
> >> that
> >
> > This is exciting to... whom?
> 
> To the people that review the code.  We're all volunteers here; if
> your filesystem is so ugly and hard to read that the code reviewers
> don't feel like finding time to slog through the mess, then it
> probably means that you need to clean the code, document it better,
> make it simpler to understand, fix the coding-style, etc.
> 
> > The only thing that appears remotely interesting about it is that
> > it's made by Oracle and apparently is supposed to be geared toward
> > parallel server whatsits.  This might be helpful to corporations,
> > but seems senseless toward many consumers.  (I'm assuming there's
> > still at least one consumer left who still uses Linux.)
> 
> Like I said above, we're all volunteers.  Personally, I find OCFS2
> _much_ more interesting than reiser4, because it has a lot of cool
> networked lock-managing algorithms that (given my current limited
> understanding), work black magic.  Given this, I'm a lot more likely
> to spend time reading the OCFS2 code because its interesting than I
> am reading reiser4 code, even though somebody eventually probably
> needs to do said review.  Hans' personal attacks on the people who
> have criticized his code make such tasks even less personally
> gratifying (IE: less interesting).  I think some people are likely
> hoping right now that if they put off the reiser4 code review long
> enough, maybe the authors will take a hint and have it a bit cleaner
> by the time they finally do get around to the review.
> 
> > Give Hans a chance; and please try to understand, even if he's hard
> > to work with.  Discriminate him because he's not a developer you
> > can talk with, and I believe that's like discriminating a guy in a
> > wheelchair because he can't run with you when you jog in the morning.
> 
> When you start getting into obscure discrimination analogies, the
> discussion has become _way_ nontechnical.  If this goes this goes any
> further, somebody's probably going to compare a kernel developer to a
> Nazi or Hitler, invoking Godwin's law and effectively killing the
> thread.  Please get this back onto a technical bent or drop it.
> 
> > Not everyone has the same "common sense" that you do.  Explain,
> > fully, with reasoning, and reproducable back-up statistics on
> > common hardware, what code is wrong, and what must be written
> > instead.  We'd like to be efficient, and it's not being efficient
> > to play a guessing
> > game with us.  If you don't have the time to review, then please
> > hold  off on replying until you have a through review of at least
> > part of the code.
> 
> Christoph has noted a number of things in previous emails.  I just
> looked through the latest released code and several of them are still
> valid.  I would look through the latest code to see what is still
> missing, but I can't get it on account of it being in bitkeeper,
> which I don't have installed and don't intend to install.
> 
> > I'm willing to go compare...  [massive nontechnical rhetoric snipped]
> 
> Unless you have technical arguments to contribute (and you indicate
> that you do not), please to not spam the LKML with useless rhetoric-
> filled emails that most of us will delete because we have too many
> other things to do to bother reading or responding to.
> 

Alright, I concede.

Personally, I'm not much of a techie compared to you guys; I'm only in
High School, and I have a mental disorder
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger's_Syndrome), so I'll stop here,
and hope that you guys can resolve this yourselves.  Good luck to all,
and hopefully there will be a peaceful resolution here.

-- 
~Mike
 - Just my two cents
 - No man is an island, and no man is unable.