From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3 Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 17:41:18 -0400 Message-ID: <4489EAFE.6090303@garzik.org> References: <4489D36C.3010000@garzik.org> <20060609203523.GE10524@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Andrew Morton , ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Michael Poole , Christoph Hellwig , Gerrit Huizenga , cmm@us.ibm.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: To: Theodore Tso In-Reply-To: <20060609203523.GE10524@thunk.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ext2-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: ext2-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Theodore Tso wrote: > And I'd also dispute with your "weren't really suited for the original > ext2-style design" comment. Ext2/3 was always designed to be > extensible from the start, and we've successfully added features quite > successfully for quite a while. Although not the only disk format change, extents are a pretty big one. Will this be the last major on-disk format change? >> Rather than taking another decade to slowly fix ext2 design decisions, >> why not move the process along a bit more rapidly? Release early, >> release often... > > I don't think it will be another decade, but yes, regardless of > whether we do a code fork or not, it will take time. Basically, you > and the ext2 developers have a disagreement about whether or not a > code fork will actually move the process along more quickly or not. > Either way, we will be releasing early and often, so people can test > it out and comment on it. Releasing patches to LKML is just the first > step in this process. I don't see how a larger filesystem codebase could possibly move more quickly than a smaller codebase. You'd have twice as many code paths to worry about. Jeff