From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from neptune.billgatliff.com ([72.249.186.68]) by casper.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1LVRIQ-0005ob-T0 for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2009 14:03:09 +0000 Message-ID: <498C40A2.8050100@billgatliff.com> Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 07:52:34 -0600 From: Bill Gatliff MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Artem Bityutskiy Subject: Re: Request for review: NandFS References: <200902031327.59536.corentincj@iksaif.net> <498BEBC8.3000302@yandex.ru> In-Reply-To: <498BEBC8.3000302@yandex.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Corentin Chary , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Gregory CLEMENT , HIBLOT Jean-Jacques , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > There are so many things to improve in UBI/UBIFS, and there > is a possibility to create a scalable UBI2. You may do a lot > of exciting things in the area, instead. > What's in Corentin's code that UBI/UBIFS could learn from? Or have you reviewed it that closely? > Please, think about joining us instead :-) > Of course, if NandFS is better than UBI/UBIFS, then maybe you should think about joining him instead! :) b.g. -- Bill Gatliff bgat@billgatliff.com