From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 18:21:33 -0400
Message-ID: <448B45ED.1040209@garzik.org>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0606090933130.5498@g5.osdl.org>
	<20060609181020.GB5964@schatzie.adilger.int>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0606091114270.5498@g5.osdl.org>
	<m31wty9o77.fsf@bzzz.home.net>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0606091137340.5498@g5.osdl.org>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0606091347590.5541@turbotaz.ourhouse>
	<4489C580.7080001@garzik.org>
	<17D07BC0-4B41-4981-80F5-7AAEC0BB6CC8@mac.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0606101238110.5498@g5.osdl.org>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0606101248030.5498@g5.osdl.org>
	<20060610212624.GD6641@thunk.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <ext2-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net>
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>,
	Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@mac.com>, Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>,
	Chase Venters <chase.venters@clientec.com>,
	Alex Tomas <alex@clusterfs.com>,
	Andreas Dilger <adilger@clusterfs.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
	ext2-devel <ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cmm@us.ibm.com,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <20060610212624.GD6641@thunk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ext2-devel>,
	<mailto:ext2-devel-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum=ext2-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:ext2-devel-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ext2-devel>,
	<mailto:ext2-devel-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=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:
> 	So you you would be in OK of a model where we copy fs/ext3 to
> "fs/ext4", and do development there which would merged rapidly into
> mainline so that people who want to participate in testing can use
> ext3dev, while people who want stability can use ext3 --- and at some
> point, we remove the old ext3 entirely and let fs/ext4 register itself
> as both the ext3 and ext4 filesystem, and at some point in the future,
> remove the ext3 name entirely?

Yep, and in addition I would argue that you can take the opportunity to 
make ext4 default to extents-enabled, and some similar behavior changes 
(dir_index default?).  The existence of both ext3 and ext4 means you can 
be more aggressive in turning on stuff, IMO.

	Jeff