From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262709AbTLBSEo (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:04:44 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262694AbTLBSDZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:03:25 -0500 Received: from ipcop.bitmover.com ([192.132.92.15]:46822 "EHLO work.bitmover.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262603AbTLBSDT (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:03:19 -0500 Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:02:51 -0800 From: Larry McVoy To: Murthy Kambhampaty Cc: "'Marcelo Tosatti'" , Russell Cattelan , Nathan Scott , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com, Andrew Morton Subject: Re: XFS for 2.4 Message-ID: <20031202180251.GB17045@work.bitmover.com> Mail-Followup-To: Larry McVoy , Murthy Kambhampaty , 'Marcelo Tosatti' , Russell Cattelan , Nathan Scott , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com, Andrew Morton References: <2D92FEBFD3BE1346A6C397223A8DD3FC0924C8@THOR.goeci.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2D92FEBFD3BE1346A6C397223A8DD3FC0924C8@THOR.goeci.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 12:45:38PM -0500, Murthy Kambhampaty wrote: > If you can't come up with something more concrete than "I don't like your > coding style" and "I'm not sure your patch won't break something", it seems > only fair you take the XFS patches. Not your call, it's Marcelo's call. And I and he have both suggested that the way to get XFS in is to have someone with some clout in the file system area agree that it is fine. It's a perfectly reasonable request and the longer it goes unanswered the less likely it is that XFS will get integrated. The fact that $XFS_USER wants it in is $XFS_USER's problem. $VFS_MAINTAINER needs to say "hey, this looks good, what's the fuss about?" and I suspect that Marcelo would be more interested. It is not, however, any more my call to make than it is your call to make. We're not doing Marcelo's job. It is also not unreasonable to reject a set of changes right before freezing 2.4. 2.4 is supposed to be dead. Add XFS and what's next? Who's pet feature needs to go in? -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm