From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261807AbTLCVDC (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:03:02 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261837AbTLCVDC (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:03:02 -0500 Received: from tmr-02.dsl.thebiz.net ([216.238.38.204]:9995 "EHLO gatekeeper.tmr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261807AbTLCVDA (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:03:00 -0500 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Path: gatekeeper.tmr.com!davidsen From: davidsen@tmr.com (bill davidsen) Newsgroups: mail.linux-kernel Subject: Re: XFS for 2.4 Date: 3 Dec 2003 20:51:49 GMT Organization: TMR Associates, Schenectady NY Message-ID: References: <2D92FEBFD3BE1346A6C397223A8DD3FC0924C8@THOR.goeci.com> <20031202180251.GB17045@work.bitmover.com> <20031202181146.A27567@infradead.org> <20031202182037.GD17045@work.bitmover.com> X-Trace: gatekeeper.tmr.com 1070484709 20082 192.168.12.62 (3 Dec 2003 20:51:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@tmr.com Originator: davidsen@gatekeeper.tmr.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In article <20031202182037.GD17045@work.bitmover.com>, Larry McVoy wrote: | 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. It has been my experience that a few hundred normal users actually running code without problems is a LOT more reliable predictor of stable operation than any one person reading the code and saying it looks good. Users check out the exception handling paths better ;-) -- bill davidsen CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.