Messages in this thread | | | From | (bill davidsen) | Subject | Re: XFS for 2.4 | Date | 3 Dec 2003 20:51:49 GMT |
| |
In article <20031202182037.GD17045@work.bitmover.com>, Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> 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 <davidsen@tmr.com> 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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |