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

| This is a process. The process is supposed to screen out bad change.
| Maybe XFS got into 2.5/2.6 inspite of the process rather than because
| of it. Maybe not. Whatever the answer is, it's perfectly reasonable
| for the maintainer of the 2.4 tree to want someone he trusts to step
| forward and say "yeah, it's fine". The fact that other VFS people
| aren't jumping up and down and saying this should go in is troublesome.
| If I were Marcelo the more the XFS people push without visible backing
| from someone with a clear vision of the VFS layer the more I'd push back.
| Don't get me wrong, I have not looked at or used XFS in years. I have
| no opinion about it at this point. But I do have an opinion about process
| and what is going on here, in my opinion, violates the Linux development
| process. Patches shouldn't go in just because you want them in, they go
| in because the maintainer chooses to bless them or someone he trusts chooses
| to bless them.

It has been my experience that a few hundred normal users actually
running code without problems is a LOT more reliable predictor of
stable operation than any one person reading the code and saying it
looks good. Users check out the exception handling paths better ;-)

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    [W:0.060 / U:25.344 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site