[lkml]   [2003]   [Dec]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: XFS for 2.4
In article <>,
Jeff Garzik <> wrote:

| It's _very_ wise to hold off on a patch if
| (a) the code is difficult to read, and therefore difficult to review and
| fix (read: style)
| (b) the maintainer is not assured of patch reliability (read: "I'm not
| sure the patch won't break things")
| Both (a) and (b) are vaild concerns for long term maintenance costs.
| Particularly (b). If Marcelo is not assured of patch reliability, then
| he absolutely --should not-- merge XFS into 2.4. That's just the way
| the system works. And it's a good system.

Given that hundreds of people have used it for several years, I find it
hard to believe that there are hidden bugs both so subtle that they
have not been seen and so bad that they cause major problems. I find "I
don't like the coding style" far easier to believe.

As you say, that's the way the system works, guess the patch will
continue, because it's more reliable than 2.6 at the moment.
bill davidsen <>
CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.
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    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean