From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@ithnet.com>
Subject: Re: Btrfs development plans
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:46:55 +0200
Message-ID: <20090421094655.469cfb37.skraw@ithnet.com>
References: <1240238253.16213.48.camel@think.oraclecorp.com>
	<20090420153118.GB6195@mother.fordon.pl.eu.org>
	<3da3b5b40904200910x63e4e26cqe058ce0e4bc7f8c8@mail.gmail.com>
	<1240245537.16213.59.camel@think.oraclecorp.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Cc: Ahmed Kamal <email.ahmedkamal@googlemail.com>,
	linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>
To: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
Return-path: <linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <1240245537.16213.59.camel@think.oraclecorp.com>
List-ID: <linux-btrfs.vger.kernel.org>

On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 12:38:57 -0400
Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com> wrote:

> 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.

... which sounds logical to me. From looking at the project for a while one
can see you are trying to solve problems that are not really linux' ones...

-- 
Regards,
Stephan