From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ahmed Kamal <email.ahmedkamal@googlemail.com>
Subject: Re: Btrfs development plans
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 18:10:13 +0200
Message-ID: <3da3b5b40904200910x63e4e26cqe058ce0e4bc7f8c8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1240238253.16213.48.camel@think.oraclecorp.com>
	 <20090420153118.GB6195@mother.fordon.pl.eu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
To: linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>
Return-path: <linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20090420153118.GB6195@mother.fordon.pl.eu.org>
List-ID: <linux-btrfs.vger.kernel.org>

> =A0But 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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" =
in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html