Daniel Pittman wrote:
OTOH, ReiserFS had an extremely long period of instability,
we were stable before ext3 was...
and wasWell, if you have a total of two guys working on a filesystem, and plenty not working yet in the filesystem, why the hell would you start to work on fsck before the main body of code is working and performing well enough that anybody would want to use it? Surely my task ordering was correct for a two man team.
build by a group who felt that a working fsck was something you put
together after you got the filesystem working.
With Reiser4 we had funding for an fsck guy, and as a result fsck is working at ship. With V3, we had no funding at all until it started to work.
This, combined with the occasional "ReiserFS 3 ate my data" reports andlike ext2/ext3, we are now able to say that almost all such reports are hardware (for V3 not V4, V4 gained some bugs when we ported to -mm and its radix trees, and is still not shipped as a result).
do you use them? I don't know real users who do, or else I would be quicker to care.the reluctance of the developers to adapt to the 4K kernel stacks in 2.6.recent,
On the one hand, you complain about how we were unstable, and on the other hand you complain about how we aren't willing to destabilize the code to add new features to what is no longer the development branch. Seems pretty inconsistent logically to me.
_______________________________________________ Ext3-users@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ext3-users
