Re: Honest timeline for btrfsck

[Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@suse.de>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 10/12/2011 06:47 PM, Jeff Putney wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Martin Steigerwald
> <Martin@lichtvoll.de> wrote:
>> Am Mittwoch, 12. Oktober 2011 schrieb Jeff Putney:
>>>> I do not argue that having a nice fsck sooner than later is
>>>> fine, but I question the usefulness of repeating reminders.
>>>> Chris Mason and other developers possibly working on the fsck
>>>> should know by now, that you want it. So its unlikely that "I
>>>> want it too" is going to change anything.
>>> 
>>> I haven't gotten the impression that Chris is quite that tone
>>> deaf, or inconsiderate of the opinions of the community at
>>> large.  And the discussion you are commenting on was about
>>> releasing the source code, not the completed tool.  I don't
>>> think anyone is saying that Chris needs to work harder and
>>> finish it faster.  What we are saying is that it would be
>>> better for the progress of btrfs in general if the development
>>> of fsck were done in an open way, and available for others to
>>> contribute to.  The main problem with your statement of "Chris 
>>> Mason and other developers..." is that there does not appear to
>>> be any other developers at all.  That's what we'd most like to
>>> see changed.
>> 
>> Fair enough, but once again you are repeating that wish.
>> 
>> I pretty much bet that Chris Mason is aware of this wish of yours
>> and other people already and the reasons for that wish. I has
>> been at least expressed for a dozen times on this thread.
>> 
>> So again what is another dozen of times trying to achieve?
>> 
>> This all reminds my of childs that ask their parents when they
>> will arrive every 10 seconds.
> 
> 
> If your driver keeps telling you that you're going to arrive in 10 
> seconds, and it takes a child to start asking questions, maybe you 
> should pay more attention and realize you just might be gettin 
> shanghaied.


Are you serious? How much are you paying for that ride?

The first rule of open source software is that those who write the
code pick the features and set the schedule. Unless you're the one
writing the paycheck, your recourse is to write a competitive solution.

I'm with you in wanting an fsck tool, but as an open source developer,
I'm offended by the assertion that you think you have the right to
demand that Chris do anything.

The fact that you view Chris writing one as a deterrent for others
writing a fsck assumes two things: that it is forthcoming and that it
will be of better quality than your fsck solution.

If you think one or both of those things are true, then by all means,
write your own. Write it or stop acting like you have any right to
tell Chris what to do. Seriously.

- -Jeff

- -- 
Jeff Mahoney
SuSE Labs
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk6WfZIACgkQLPWxlyuTD7KdAgCgii9e2AVQ+5MJ4cfKnI7Bumnx
wpIAoJHYyavF27mrNu4Bb+V6kkrgouiq
=Lhzp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----