Re: reiserFS?

[Lexington Luthor <Lexington.Luthor@gmail.com>]

grundig wrote:
> You (and every reiser4 fan that FUDs against linux developers just because
> he can't understand why reiser4 still is not in) are seriously missing the
> point.

Easy there... I am not trying to get reiser4 merged, I am just trying to 
understand why it isn't already there. I am sure I have misunderstood 
something, otherwise there would not be such a great debate about this 
issue. I just would like to know more.

> Just to point you how wrong you are, compare OCFS2 and GFS. Both of them
> are clustering filesystems, being OCFS from Oracle and GFS from Redhat.
> _Both_ filesystems have been asked to be included in the main tree. As for
> today, only OCFS2 is in (since 2.6.16, after several reviews and after
> fixing their code like everyone else). GFS still isn't in and seems to
> need work, but you won't see to the GFS technical leader tell everybody
> (like Hans has done here) that Linux politics don't allow GFS to go in.
> Instead of wining, they just go back to work on their issues.

Can you please point me to the current list of issues regarding reiser4 
which are holding back its merging? Perhaps I can help with some of them.

Thanks,
LL