David H. Lynch Jr wrote:
Jeff Garzik wrote:
If the compelling reason is that it needs a test, I'd say its not ready.
Can you please elaborate ? I am not sure I understand what you are
arguing ?
Despite his substantially less than polite rhetoric, I have read
Hans's post from months if not years ago.
Aside from the pissing contests - which where not entirely one
sided, I actually beleive that Hans made a reasonable case
that Reiser4 had gone about as far as it could reasonably go with
regard to testing, robustness, ... without the broader base of
use that even an experimental filesystem in distribution tree would get.
I for one would atleast play with it if it were in the distribution
tree.
As far as I could tell pretty much everything else that was demanded
Hans eventually caved and provided - albeit with much pissing and moaning,
and holy than thou rhetoric.
The argument that anything that needs testing can't get into the
distribution tree's is specious. There is alot of poorly tested crap in
the distribution trees.
I'm arguing against circular logic: the claim that one cannot determine
reiser4's true usefulness unless its in the tree.
The better method is to get a distro to add reiser4, _then_ if it proves
worthy add it to the kernel tree.
Not the other way around.
Jeff
-
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
