On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 18:18 +0100, Heinz Mauelshagen wrote: > On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 17:41 +0100, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: > > On 2009-12-01T17:05:03, heinzm@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > Please review for upstream inclusion. > > > > Should this not be Cc'ed to LKML if you aim for upstream inclusion? I > > actually would expect that most of the criticism of drbd's inclusion > > would also apply here, no? (With the added point that dm-replicator does > > not actually have any users yet.) > > We have a series of patches to sort out basic issues on dm-devel. > The usual process is, that agk as the subsystem maintainer integrates > and upstreams it. Could I just echo Lars' statement. With the upstream inclusion of drbd, dm-replicator becomes a *third* replication system asking to be in kernel. It is definitely a kernel policy question of whether we want three separate replicators, and so should be Cc'd to lkml so that people interested in that can weigh in. James -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
