Re: [PATCH 0/7] OMFS filesystem version 3

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 22:24:32 +0300
Adrian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > Look, I have repeatedly described the reason why it is probable a poor
> > tradeoff to merge code such as this.  The only response has been "well
> > we've done it before", which is largely a non-reason.
> >...
> 
> It seems you missed the first point in my email:
> 
> We do not have a stable API for external modules, and part of the deal 
> is that external modules have the chance of entering the kernel where 
> they will get API changes automatically.
> 
> 
> Plus my other point that one might argue that OMFS adds support for some 
> hardware in which case a recent commandment by Linus would require it 
> has to be merged...

That's lawyerly trickery, sorry.  Take some set of guidelines and then say
"you are thereby committed to doing X".

We're not committed to doing anything and it would be bad if we were. 
Let's apply common sense and judgement to each case on its own.

--
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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux