RE: [PATCH] hfs{plus}: add deprecation warning

[Viacheslav Dubeyko <Slava.Dubeyko@ibm.com>]

Hi Adrian,

On Thu, 2025-04-17 at 11:29 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Hello Viacheslav,
> 
> On Wed, 2025-04-16 at 17:56 +0000, Viacheslav Dubeyko wrote:
> > I contributed to HFS+ file system driver more than 10 years ago. And I was
> > completely discouraged because nobody maintained the HFS+ code base. But I would
> > prefer to see the HFS+ in kernel tree instead of complete removal. As far as I
> > can see, we are still receiving some patches for HFS/HFS+ code base. Nowadays, I
> > am mostly busy with CephFS and SSDFS file systems. But if we need more
> > systematic activity on HFS/HFS+, then I can find some time for HFS/HFS+ testing,
> > bug fix, and pathes review. I am not sure that I would have enough time for HFS+
> > active development. But is it really that nobody would like to be the maintainer
> > of HFS/HFS+? Have we asked the contributors and reviewers of HFS/HFS+?
> 
> If you're willing to step up as a maintainer, I would be happy to assist you by
> testing and reviewing patches. I have PowerMacs available for testing and it's
> also possible to just install Debian's 32-bit and 64-bit PowerPC on an emulated
> PowerMac on QEMU using the "mac99" machine types to test booting from an HFS/HFS+
> partition [1].
> 
> I am Debian's primary maintainer of these PowerPC ports in Debian (not to be confused
> with the little-endian PowerPC port) and I can also easily build various test images
> if needed.
> 
> Please let me know if you're interested in working together on the HFS/HFS+ driver.
> 

Sounds good! Yes, I am interested in working together on the HFS/HFS+ driver. :)
And, yes, I can consider to be the maintainer of HFS/HFS+ driver. We can
maintain the HFS/HFS+ driver together because two maintainers are better than
one. Especially, if there is the practical need of having HFS/HFS+ driver in
Linux kernel.

Thanks,
Slava.