From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030991AbXDWFrb (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Apr 2007 01:47:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030990AbXDWFra (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Apr 2007 01:47:30 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:34045 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030989AbXDWFrU (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Apr 2007 01:47:20 -0400 Message-ID: <462C4858.3050006@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 01:47:04 -0400 From: Rik van Riel Organization: Red Hat, Inc User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20061008) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: William Heimbigner CC: Eric Hopper , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Question about Reiser4 References: <20070423020046.GA28477@omnifarious.org> <462C2E5B.1080008@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org William Heimbigner wrote: >> Eric Hopper wrote: >>> I know that this whole effort has been put in disarray by the >>> prosecution of Hans Reiser, but I'm curious as to its status. >> >> It was in disarray well before. Many of the reiser4 features, >> like filesystem plugins, make more technical sense in the Linux >> VFS, but made more business sense for Namesys as a reiserfs 4 >> thing. That lead to a stalemate. >> > Shouldn't it be a matter of stability though? A lot of other things matter. Things like a willingness to maintain the code after it gets merged, or at least turning the code into something the community is willing to maintain if the original developers stop maintaining it. > Benchmarks suggest that > reiser4 is a good file system; reiser4 is the successor to the > already-accepted reiserfs; we've got experimental ext4 support but no > reiser4 support, etc. Namesys kind of abandoned reiserfs after work on reiser4 started. Taking in a new code base on such a track record is not a good idea when the code is not in a shape where the community wants to maintain it. > I don't see why something like plugins should matter. If it works enough > to be marked as experimental, why shouldn't reiser4 support be included? > It's a pain for me personally to have to patch any kernel with reiser4 > support so I can use the reiser4 fs. You basically have three options: 1) keep patching every time you upgrade the kernel 2) use another filesystem 3) become the new reiser4 maintainer and turn the code into something that Linus is willing to accept -- Politics is the struggle between those who want to make their country the best in the world, and those who believe it already is. Each group calls the other unpatriotic.