On 1/11/23 13:55, James Bottomley wrote:
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.
But that's kinda the point.
The above quoted examples do have implementations which were sent to the
mailing list (well, not the dispersed namespace one, but let's not get
hooked up on that one), _and_ enable existing hardware features.
So they tick all the boxes you specified.
Yet they have been rejected.
Cheers,
Hannes
