On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:44:20 -0400 Chris Mason <chris.mason@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > But, the code is very actively developed, and I believe the best way to > develop Btrfs from here is to get it into the mainline kernel (with a > large warning label about the disk format) and attract more extensive > review of both the disk format and underlying code. For the record... I have been encouraging Chris to get btrfs into mainline soon. Get it into linux-next asap and merge it into 2.6.29. And do this even though the on-disk format is still changing - we emit a loud printk at mount time and if someone comes to depend upon some intermediate format, well, that's their tough luck. My thinking here is that btrfs probably has a future, and that an early merge will accelerate its development and will broaden its developer base. If it ends up failing for some reason, well, we can just delete it again. For various reasons this approach often isn't appropriate as a general policy thing, but I do think that Linux has needed a new local filesystem for some time, and btrfs might be The One, and hence is worth a bit of special-case treatment. -- 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
