Re: XFS for 2.4

[Xose Vazquez Perez]

davidsen wrote:

> Larry McVoy wrote:

>> It is also not unreasonable to reject a set of changes right before
>> freezing 2.4.  2.4 is supposed to be dead.  Add XFS and what's next?
>> Who's pet feature needs to go in?

> Now that is bullshit and you know it! This is not a pet feature, this
> is code which has has been stable for years. There just aren't any
> other candidates, all the other FS stuff went in with less testing and
> have fewer users now (JFS as example). This is also not code offered
> "right before a freeze" this code has been offered version by version
> for two bleepin' years, has it not? There's no slippery slope, there
> are no other major features which have proven long-term stability. Fell
> free to name them if I'm wrong...

Really XFS code is not the big problem. But the changes in other parts [1]
are really problematic when 2.4 is a *must be stable* .
Is so hard to understand ?

If Marcelo believes that XFS changes, or any other feature or code,
must not be in 2.4.24, is god's word and End Of Thread.

Christoph Hellwig is reviewing the XFS code, and we will see ...


[1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-xfs&m=107025984901582&w=2

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/