From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christian Stroetmann OntoLab Subject: Re: reiser4 inclusion? Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 08:35:14 +0200 Message-ID: <49EC17A2.2060203@ontolab.com> References: <49EBF59C.4020703@ontolab.com> <49EC1478.2080004@inn.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <49EC1478.2080004@inn.nl> Sender: reiserfs-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Arend Freije , reiserfs-devel Dear Arend; You wrote > Christian Stroetmann OntoLab wrote: > >> Dear Christian; >> You wrote: >> >>> Guys, >>> >>> I did NOT intend to start (yet another) /flamewar/ about the pros and >>> cons of this filesystem. I was really only wondering about the >>> showstoppers left (i.e. code to fix) before this could be included. I >>> still imagine that having a (halfway current) TODO list of things >>> would help a lot here. The KernelJanitors/Todo list looks like a sane >>> example of what I meant to have. >>> Bashing around about "renaming the filesystem" and "unfriendly >>> developers" is not what I consider helpful on this particular matter. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Christian. >>> >>> >> It seems to be, that we're running in circles since 2 or 3 years. >> > > A complaint about running around in circles is not a showstopper that > blocks inclusion. Renaming "Reiser4" to "OntoFs" doesn't help either. A > good Todo list would really be helpful to keep track of the status, to > trigger feature implementation and/or bug fixes, and to have discussions > about content, not procedures. > > Regards, > > Arend I would like to encourage everybody interested in this subject to first read the reiserfs-devel mailing-list and my website concerning the R4 filesystem entirely and carefully. If it is helpful and still not clear what is going on, I'm also willing to write a list of the steps that have happened. Sincerely Christian *<:o)