On 10/03, Michael Clark said something like:
> On 10/03/02 20:38, Alan Cox wrote:
> > On Thu, 2002-10-03 at 06:50, Michael Clark wrote:
> >
> >>>... and you don't need EVMS for that.
> >>
> >>But EVMS would be an excellent substitute in the mean time.
> >>
> >>Better to having something excellent now than something perfect but
> >>too late.
This statement is misleading; in no way is EVMS intended as an
interim solution to a problem addressed easier in other ways. It's
a fundamental change which happens to address certain critical issues
and also adds functionality whiz-bangs.
> > You can see who around here has maintained kernel code and who hasnt.
> > You don't want a substitute in the mean time, because then you have to
> > get rid of it
>
> Like LVM ;)
Not quite...
> /me submits to the masters and waits in subjugation.
>
> Just hoping for good Volume Manager in 2.6 and EVMS looks good
> to me from an end user perspective, and also seems quite timely.
Me too.
-- Shawn Leas core@enodev.comI had a friend who was a clown... when he died, all his friends went to the funeral in one car... -- Stephen Wright - 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 07 2002 - 22:00:39 EST