From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 10:38:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 10:38:12 -0400 Received: from msp-65-29-16-62.mn.rr.com ([65.29.16.62]:55734 "EHLO localhost.localdomain") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 10:38:11 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 09:42:55 -0500 From: Shawn To: Alexander Viro Cc: Michael Clark , Christoph Hellwig , Mark Peloquin , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@transmeta.com, evms-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Evms-devel] Re: Linux v2.5.42 Message-ID: <20021014094255.B27417@q.mn.rr.com> References: <3DA99CEC.8040208@metaparadigm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from viro@math.psu.edu on Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 01:10:49PM -0400 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/13, Alexander Viro said something like: > Mostly those who won't have to clean up the mess afterwards. > For the record, my vote is "not ready". Oh shit! This is the "Al Viro stink test" Linus spoke of. Now, if no LVM type ifrastructure is included in 2.6, all (all who use an LVM of some type) will all have to 1. update to the latest mainline 2. download the latest dm or evms patch 3. fix all the patch rejects themselves (big problem to overcome when trying to get people to test with the latest kernel) I'm NOT saying this is some kind of argument toward inclusion. I guess I'm just lamenting. I really hoped I'd have one less 3rd party patch to maintain in my own personal tree. -- Shawn Leas core@enodev.com I was in the first submarine. Instead of a periscope, they had a kaleidoscope. "We're surrounded." -- Stephen Wright