From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: Btrfs development plans
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 12:38:57 -0400
Message-ID: <1240245537.16213.59.camel@think.oraclecorp.com>
References: <1240238253.16213.48.camel@think.oraclecorp.com>
	 <20090420153118.GB6195@mother.fordon.pl.eu.org>
	 <3da3b5b40904200910x63e4e26cqe058ce0e4bc7f8c8@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Cc: linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>
To: Ahmed Kamal <email.ahmedkamal@googlemail.com>
Return-path: <linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <3da3b5b40904200910x63e4e26cqe058ce0e4bc7f8c8@mail.gmail.com>
List-ID: <linux-btrfs.vger.kernel.org>

On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 18:10 +0200, Ahmed Kamal wrote:
> >  But now Oracle can re-license Solaris and merge ZFS with btrfs.
> > Just kidding, I don't think it would be technically feasible.
> >
> 
> May I suggest the name "ZbtrFS" :)
> Sorry couldn't resist. On a more serious note though, is there any
> technical benefits that justify continuing to push money in btrfs

The short answer from my point of view is yes.  This doesn't really
change the motivations for working on btrfs or the problems we're trying
to solve.

-chris