On 2025/1/17 14:26, Phillip Lougher wrote:
Gao Xiang wrote:
By doing this they deliberately reduce the compression and speed of Squashfs in their tests. This IMHO is biased and unethical. But that is how it is.
Also if I were a random filesystem author, I will never argue just due to lack of development resource.
The insinuation here is that I'm that random filesystem author. So I'm now getting personal attacks because I'm defending Squashfs.
Why do you think it's a personal attack by `random`? Did I say SquashFS?
`lack of more development resource` is a common issue of the kernel
filesystem community as far as I know [1]. But I will not argue that
since that is the truth and I've always working on EROFS these years.
IOWs, I just said `I'm one of a filesystem author as other filesystems
in the world why it sounds not good to you?`
How low will you go?
Even considering I'm not a native speaker, I think it more sounds like
a personal attack to me.
I will just ignore this, since I've said I will just write code myself,
and catch the missing cases in my spare time.
Thanks,
Gao Xiang
--
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
