--PNTmBPCT7hxwcZjr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline begin IT3 Stuart Blake Tener, USNR-R quotation: > In theory, I agree with your concerns about changing ext2/ext3, > but stability ought not to be the reason to never improve things. The goal of ext3, as I understand it, was simply to be "ext2 plus journaling", and to be backward and forward compatible with ext2 for ease of migration. Dynamic inodes are irrelevant to the former, and fundamentally in conflict with the latter. If anyone wants to start up a new fs project to create "ext2 [or ext3] plus dynamic inodes", they are free to do so; but whining at the ext3 team because that doesn't happen to be one of their goals is silly. > I believe this choice was made, simply to promote ext3, not out > of the need of users. Speaking as someone who is neither a Red Hat employee, nor a Red Hat user (my machines all run Debian) nor an ext3 developer, and therefore free to speak my mind without concern for diplomacy -- this is obviously utter bullshit. Get a grip. Craig --PNTmBPCT7hxwcZjr Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8XvQQTv3a2fa7g4sRAqLUAJ9oSGeF9Sng8eT1OUWzsSNz7sR3FQCfd1Tz Cf/w3R//D1kqpsnJMpyT5qA= =VA2t -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --PNTmBPCT7hxwcZjr--
