On Wed, 2023-01-11 at 12:49 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > Hi all, > > given the recent discussion on the mailing list I would like to > propose a topic for LSF/MM: > > Limits of development > > In recent times quite some development efforts were left floundering > (Non-Po2 zones, NVMe dispersed namespaces), while others (like blk- > snap) went ahead. And it's hard to figure out why some projects are > deemed 'good', and others 'bad'. It's not any form of secret: some ideas are just easier to implement and lead to useful features and others don't. It's exactly why we insist on code based discussions. It's also why standards that aren't driven by implementations can be problematic: what sounds good on paper doesn't necessarily work out well in practice. > I would like to have a discussion at LSF/MM about what are valid > reasons for future developments, and maybe even agree on common > guidelines where developers can refer to when implementing new > features. I don't think anyone can give you this. If it could be achieved then all the standards bodies that are currently forced to deal with implementations could happily go back to abstract proposals. James
