On 2000-06-13 16:32:02 +0100, James Sutherland wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, Hans Reiser wrote:
> > If you can reproduce a bug on the current version of reiserfs, please
> > do so and report it. I think you'd rather throw mud though.
>
> No, I'd rather just leave RFS to mature for a while, while we work on
> getting 2.4.0 ready.
Hmm.. so what you're saying is you don't have the time or ability to
reproduce bugs in reiserfs and maybe help solve them, but you do have
time to respond to every post on the inclusion-of-reiserfs thread saying
how buggy it is?
I think you should seriously consider a time management course.
> I've heard a couple of horror stories about RFS chewing up data.
I've heard that if I send $5 to three addresses in lamerica, and add my
address to the bottom and send the letter I got from these people to
everyone in my address book, I'll become a billionaire!
"It must be true, I heard it on the internet!"
If you have not experienced, and do not have the time/ability to produce
bugs in reiserfs, then it doesn't take too many brain cells to figure
out that in your own experience, there are no bugs in reiserfs.
So stop spreading your FUD to this list.
Feel free to reproduce a bug (not only in reiserfs, in anything!) and
complain to the list. Include a list of steps that will reproduce it.
Hell, include a patch that fixes it.
If you're *really* concerned about getting 2.4.0 ready, that is what
you'll do. From what I've seen (and, I must say, I read this list from
archives usually 2 days old) all you seem to do is spread FUD about
things you don't like.
I don't even use reiserfs, but (like Voltaire) I'll defend to the death
the right of any driver at an acceptable level of development to be
included.
I'm one of the many here who have said Y to the experimental new
second extended filesystem not all that long ago, which hasn't gone
without its own fair share of post-inclusion development and bug fixes
in the years since.
> They'd probably be less happy if they'd just lost an entire SQL database
> to your software...
I've lost three years worth of archived email to a filesystem corruption
bug in ext2. I've lost the latest development version of software I
write to a corrupted ext2fs.
Back. Up. Your. Data.
(like Linus, I prefer to simply put the important stuff up on ftp and
let the world mirror it ;)
> The integration into the kernel doesn't appear to work properly yet, FWIH.
Hmm.. again from what you've heard. Maybe what you've heard is as out
as date as my own previous comments "from what I heard" on the LSB, and,
like that, is actually in a far better state than you last heard.
> Even if it does, it's too late for the code to go in now, so what are you
> arguing about?
So was S/390 support, so are these VM tweaks. Look through changelogs,
a lot of stuff goes in "late". Look in past history of kernel
development, a lot of stuff goes in late. If the world doesn't run to
Linus Torvalds' timetable, it certainly doesn't run to yours.
You know what to do if you don't want reiserfs? When you configure your
kernel and the option for reiserfs is presented, say no. Don't be
scared, lots of other people will be saying "no" too. It's not
difficult. It's even easier than saying "yes" because it'll no doubt be
the default.
reiserfs contains no nicotine. You're not under any mind-altering
chemical making it biologically difficult to say no.
Just like other kernel options you don't want, you can say no.
Repeat after me:
Include support for EXPERIMENTAL reiserfs? [y/N] n
Denying the right of people who may want to say "y" to do so will lead
to the Dark Side.
-- Matt- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 15 2000 - 21:00:35 EST