[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:0.020 / U:204.872 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site