From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262817AbTLBSVK (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:21:10 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263303AbTLBSVK (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:21:10 -0500 Received: from ipcop.bitmover.com ([192.132.92.15]:5863 "EHLO work.bitmover.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262817AbTLBSU5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:20:57 -0500 Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:20:37 -0800 From: Larry McVoy To: Christoph Hellwig , Murthy Kambhampaty , "'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: <20031202182037.GD17045@work.bitmover.com> Mail-Followup-To: Larry McVoy , Christoph Hellwig , 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> <20031202180251.GB17045@work.bitmover.com> <20031202181146.A27567@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031202181146.A27567@infradead.org> 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 06:11:46PM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 10:02:51AM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote: > > 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. > > I think you're missing the point. The patches have been review many > times, they've been posted to lkml many time with the request for comment > and they've been merged into 2.5 in almost exactly that form. So what's wrong with asking $VFS_MAINTAINER to refresh Marcelo's memory about that? This is a process. The process is supposed to screen out bad change. Maybe XFS got into 2.5/2.6 inspite of the process rather than because of it. Maybe not. Whatever the answer is, it's perfectly reasonable for the maintainer of the 2.4 tree to want someone he trusts to step forward and say "yeah, it's fine". The fact that other VFS people aren't jumping up and down and saying this should go in is troublesome. If I were Marcelo the more the XFS people push without visible backing from someone with a clear vision of the VFS layer the more I'd push back. Don't get me wrong, I have not looked at or used XFS in years. I have no opinion about it at this point. But I do have an opinion about process and what is going on here, in my opinion, violates the Linux development process. Patches shouldn't go in just because you want them in, they go in because the maintainer chooses to bless them or someone he trusts chooses to bless them. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm