Re: Reiser4. BEST FILESYSTEM EVER.

[Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>]

David H. Lynch Jr wrote:
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> If the compelling reason is that it needs a test, I'd say its not ready.
> 
>     Can you please elaborate ? I am not sure I understand what you are
> arguing ?
> 
>     Despite his substantially less than polite rhetoric, I have read
> Hans's post from months if not years ago.
>     Aside from the pissing contests - which where not entirely one
> sided, I actually beleive that Hans made a reasonable case
>     that Reiser4 had gone about as far as it could reasonably go with
> regard to testing, robustness, ... without the broader base of
>     use that even an experimental filesystem in distribution tree would get.
> 
>     I for one would atleast play with it if it were in the distribution
> tree.
>     As far as I could tell pretty much everything else that was demanded
> Hans eventually caved and provided - albeit with much pissing and moaning,
>     and holy than thou rhetoric.
> 
>     The argument that anything that needs testing can't get into the
> distribution tree's is specious. There is alot of poorly tested crap in
> the distribution trees.

I'm arguing against circular logic:  the claim that one cannot determine 
reiser4's true usefulness unless its in the tree.

The better method is to get a distro to add reiser4, _then_ if it proves 
worthy add it to the kernel tree.

Not the other way around.

	Jeff