On Sat, May 02, 2009 at 07:30:02PM +1000, tridge@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > The non-technical reasons for this patch are available to anyone who > cares to read any of the many news sites that discuss recent > events. The fact that I can't discuss those reasons shouldn't preclude > me from proposing a technical solution which tries to minimise the > impact on Linux users. Yes, the fact that you let someone else send a patch for you, refuse to state any reason for it and when asked for it talk around the problems is a very good reason not to bother with a patch. If you think there is a patent problem with long file names and have a good argument for it we should just make the reduce functionality the default until it's settled. If you do not have a good argument we should drop this completely. > I'm hoping that you and others will look at the proposed technical > solution to the non-technical problem, and perhaps suggest better > approaches. There are a wide variety of approaches to avoiding this > problem, and we need to work out which, if any, should be part of the > kernel.org releases. Sorting out a problem starts with clearly stating what the problem is. -- 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
