Jeff Garzik writes: > Theodore Tso wrote: > > And I'd also dispute with your "weren't really suited for the original > > ext2-style design" comment. Ext2/3 was always designed to be > > extensible from the start, and we've successfully added features quite > > successfully for quite a while. > > Although not the only disk format change, extents are a pretty big > one. Will this be the last major on-disk format change? You keep making "straw that broke the camel's back" type arguments without saying why this particular straw (rather than the other compatibility-breaking features that are already in ext3) is the one that must not be allowed. Is it a matter of taste, or is there some objective threshold that extents cross? > >> Rather than taking another decade to slowly fix ext2 design > >> decisions, why not move the process along a bit more rapidly? > >> Release early, release often... > > I don't think it will be another decade, but yes, regardless of > > whether we do a code fork or not, it will take time. Basically, you > > and the ext2 developers have a disagreement about whether or not a > > code fork will actually move the process along more quickly or not. > > Either way, we will be releasing early and often, so people can test > > it out and comment on it. Releasing patches to LKML is just the first > > step in this process. > > I don't see how a larger filesystem codebase could possibly move more > quickly than a smaller codebase. You'd have twice as many code paths > to worry about. This is also the case when you cut and paste an entire filesystem's source code, as has been mentioned several times in this thread. Michael Poole - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
