[lkml]   [2003]   [Dec]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: XFS for 2.4
    On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 10:02:51AM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
    > Not your call, it's Marcelo's call. And I and he have both suggested
    > that the way to get XFS in is to have someone with some clout in the file
    > system area agree that it is fine. It's a perfectly reasonable request
    > and the longer it goes unanswered the less likely it is that XFS will get
    > integrated. The fact that $XFS_USER wants it in is $XFS_USER's problem.
    > $VFS_MAINTAINER needs to say "hey, this looks good, what's the fuss about?"
    > and I suspect that Marcelo would be more interested.

    I think you're missing the point. The patches have been review many
    times, they've been posted to lkml many time with the request for comment
    and they've been merged into 2.5 in almost exactly that form.

    > It is also not unreasonable to reject a set of changes right before
    > freezing 2.4. 2.4 is supposed to be dead.

    That's indeed a point and a very resonable one. But a few of the patches
    Nathan has in that BK repo have been submited for more than year again
    and again, and Marcelo's reply (for those 10% of the cases that a reply
    existed at all) was something along the lines "let's postpone it after
    the next release". In my opinion that's not the right attitude from
    a kernel maintainer to someone who wants to contribute major work.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:59    [W:0.021 / U:5.516 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site