From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Poole Subject: Re: [Ext2-devel] [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3 Date: 09 Jun 2006 17:45:05 -0400 Message-ID: <87ac8matr2.fsf@graviton.dyn.troilus.org> References: <4489D36C.3010000@garzik.org> <20060609203523.GE10524@thunk.org> <4489EAFE.6090303@garzik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Theodore Tso , Gerrit Huizenga , Andrew Morton , ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , cmm@us.ibm.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from 24-75-174-210-st.chvlva.adelphia.net ([24.75.174.210]:19845 "EHLO sanosuke.troilus.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030527AbWFIVpG (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jun 2006 17:45:06 -0400 To: Jeff Garzik In-Reply-To: <4489EAFE.6090303@garzik.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Jeff Garzik writes: > 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? You keep making "straw that broke the camel's back" type arguments without saying why this particular straw (rather than the other compatibility-breaking features that are already in ext3) is the one that must not be allowed. Is it a matter of taste, or is there some objective threshold that extents cross? > >> 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. This is also the case when you cut and paste an entire filesystem's source code, as has been mentioned several times in this thread. Michael Poole