public inbox for linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org>
To: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Btrfs mainline plans
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 18:27:40 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081007152740.GA31089@cs181140183.pp.htv.fi> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1223300403.16546.45.camel@think.oraclecorp.com>

On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 09:40:03AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-10-05 at 18:09 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 05, 2008 at 09:11:13AM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > > Quoting Adrian Bunk (bunk@kernel.org):
> > >
> 
> [ when to merge btrfs ]
> 
> > > > Let's try to learn from the past:
> > > > 
> > > > 6 days from today ext4 (another new local filesystem for Linux) 
> > > > celebrates the second birthday of it's inclusion into Linus' tree
> > > > as a similar special-case.
> > > > 
> > > > You claim "an early merge will accelerate its development and will 
> > > > broaden its developer base" for Btrfs.
> > > > 
> > > > Read the timeline Ted outlined back in June 2006 for ext4 [1].
> > > > When comparing with what happened in reality it kinda disproves
> > > > your "acceleration" point.
> > > 
> 
> The btrfs timelines have always been aggressive, and as btrfs gets
> closer to feature complete, the testing matrix grows dramatically.  I
> can't promise my crazy timelines won't slip, but I've been hacking away
> in the basement for almost 18 months now and it's time for me to get off
> the pot and make it stable.
> 
> Ext4 has always had to deal with the ghost of ext3.  Both from a
> compatibility point of view and everyone's expectations of stability.  I
> believe that most of us underestimated how difficult it would be to move
> ext4 forward.
> 
> Btrfs is different for lots of reasons, and being in mainline will
> definitely increase the pressure on the btrfs developers to finish, and
> the resources available for us to finish with.

Your last sentence does not make sense:

According to your timeline btrfs 1.0 will be released in Q408 [1] - and
the merge window for 2.6.29 will be in Q109.

>...
> > For people wanting to try WIP code you don't need it in mainline.
> > 
> > Stable kernels will anyway usually contain months old code of the
> > WIP filesystem that is not usable for testing, so for any meaningful
> > testing you will still have to follow the btrfs tree and not mainline.
> 
> For ext4 at least, the mainline code is very usable.  I hope to have
> btrfs in shape for that by the 2.6.29 merge cycle.

One risk you should be aware of is that when btrfs is in 2.6.29 part of 
the Linux press might pick it up and stress test and benchmark this new 
filesystem.

JFS still suffers from from not being that good when it was
initially merged.

> -chris

cu
Adrian

[1] http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Development_timeline

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed


  reply	other threads:[~2008-10-07 15:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <1222717460.30627.56.camel@think.oraclecorp.com>
     [not found] ` <20081003001859.e30af6a5.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
     [not found]   ` <20081005122405.GA12047@cs181140183.pp.htv.fi>
     [not found]     ` <20081005141113.GA6132@us.ibm.com>
2008-10-05 15:09       ` [RFC] Btrfs mainline plans Adrian Bunk
2008-10-06 13:40         ` Chris Mason
2008-10-07 15:27           ` Adrian Bunk [this message]
2008-10-07 16:01             ` Chris Mason
2008-10-07 20:25               ` Adrian Bunk
2008-10-08 21:33         ` Daniel Phillips
2008-10-09  8:22           ` Adrian Bunk
2008-10-10  3:01             ` Theodore Tso

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20081007152740.GA31089@cs181140183.pp.htv.fi \
    --to=bunk@kernel.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=chris.mason@oracle.com \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=serue@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=tytso@mit.edu \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox