linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Daniel Phillips <phillips@phunq.net>
To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org>
Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
	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: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 14:33:32 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200810081433.32766.phillips@phunq.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081005150957.GC12047@cs181140183.pp.htv.fi>

On Sunday 05 October 2008 08:09, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> "accelerate its development and will broaden its developer base" is not 
> about users/testers but about people doing code development.
> 
> For people wanting to try WIP code you don't need it in mainline.

But it saves time for the user, who does not have to run around chasing
links, carefully checking for a kernel match, downloading, patching,
building and installing a single purpose kernel, and bringing it up on
a machine that would probably have only required one click on the new
filesystem option otherwise.  The considerable time thus saved can be
invested profitably in running test cases and filing bug reports.
 
> 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.

True, but the trick here is getting started.  It is much easier to
justify the effort of going out and getting the latest patch if one
knows from experience that it basically already works.

> This is not meant as a statement on the quality of ext4 or btrfs, or any 
> comparison of the development times of ext4 and btrfs, but for ext4 the 
> advantages Andrew thinks would happen with an early btrfs merge do not 
> seem to have happened.

Are you sure about that?  I see 33 messages on linux-ext4 yesterday,
from a broad range of contributors.  Versus eight from a much narrower
range of contributors, Oct 4 a year ago.

There is little question that an early merge helps both developers and
users employ their time more efficiently, once a project is past the
point where we wonder about its value and/or viability.  In my opinion,
Btrfs clearly has both.  Particularly because we need a way to stem the
loss of mindshare to ZFS in the storage space, which is significant at
the moment.  And Btrfs is closest to the finish line in that regard.
It needs all the help it can get.

Regards,

Daniel

  parent reply	other threads:[~2008-10-08 21:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-09-29 19:44 [RFC] Btrfs mainline plans Chris Mason
2008-10-03  7:18 ` Andrew Morton
2008-10-05 12:24   ` Adrian Bunk
2008-10-05 14:11     ` Serge E. Hallyn
2008-10-05 15:09       ` Adrian Bunk
2008-10-06 13:40         ` Chris Mason
2008-10-07 15:27           ` Adrian Bunk
2008-10-07 16:01             ` Chris Mason
2008-10-07 20:25               ` Adrian Bunk
2008-10-08 21:33         ` Daniel Phillips [this message]
2008-10-09  8:22           ` Adrian Bunk
2008-10-10  3:01             ` Theodore Tso
2008-10-03 17:06 ` Jan Engelhardt

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=200810081433.32766.phillips@phunq.net \
    --to=phillips@phunq.net \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=bunk@kernel.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).