Re: [linux-lvm] LVM 1.0 release decision

Re: [linux-lvm] LVM 1.0 release decision

[Heinz J. Mauelshagen]

On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 08:48:19PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Fri, 11 May 2001, Steven Lembark wrote:
> 
> > for my part running the system i'd rather have the "production"
> > LVM and kernel releases in sync and not have to worry about it.
> > if i need a beta/inter-version release then i'll deal with the
> > extra issues.
> 
> Agreed.  If the in-kernel LVM cannot be trusted, I really
> don't see why Sistina would ever want to associate its name
> with something broken?

Rik, that's not an issue at all and sorry, it doesn't help either!

With the help of community contributors we *do* provide the most recent
code with as few bugs as possible at www.sistina.com/lvm as we always did.

Everybody could and can get it from there and established LVM users continue
to do it this way.

OTOH we need a lot of time now to get smaller patches into vanilla.

Therefore we kindly asked for community oppinions to help the situation.


Unless a bigger LVM patch to vanilla is accepted, we need to spend a lot of work
on providing those smaller chunks of patches which distracts us a lot from
other work.

Don't tell me that this is all our fault; 
this wouldn't *help* to fasten the process either!

A little trust to accept a bigger patch *and* to sort pending issues
out with the help of the community afterwards is a valid approach IMO to
get faster to the point of an updated vanilla LVM driver than with the
tiny patches approach.

Linus, Alan et al.: maybe you could think about it again and
                    accept one larger LVM patch. Thanks.

> 
> I think it would be better for everyone (users, Sistina's
> corporate image and Linux) to get something stable into the
> kernel before sending out the press release ;)
> 
> (after all, a version number change is just a one-liner patch
> away ;))
> 
> regards,
> 
> Rik
> --
> Virtual memory is like a game you can't win;
> However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...
> 
> http://www.surriel.com/		http://distro.conectiva.com/
> 
> Send all your spam to aardvark@nl.linux.org (spam digging piggy)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> linux-lvm mailing list
> linux-lvm@sistina.com
> http://lists.sistina.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm

-- 

Regards,
Heinz    -- The LVM Guy --

*** Software bugs are stupid.
    Nevertheless it needs not so stupid people to solve them ***

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Heinz Mauelshagen                                 Sistina Software Inc.
Senior Consultant/Developer                       Am Sonnenhang 11
                                                  56242 Marienrachdorf
                                                  Germany
Mauelshagen@Sistina.com                           +49 2626 141200
                                                       FAX 924446
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [linux-lvm] LVM 1.0 release decision

[Rik van Riel]

On Wed, 16 May 2001, Heinz J. Mauelshagen wrote:

> Linus, Alan et al.: maybe you could think about it again and
>                     accept one larger LVM patch. Thanks.

I'm all for it right now. I'm running LVM on practically all my
machines and would really like to have the latest bugfixes in
my kernel ;)

Rik
--
Virtual memory is like a game you can't win;
However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...

http://www.surriel.com/		http://distro.conectiva.com/

Send all your spam to aardvark@nl.linux.org (spam digging piggy)