> Hi,
>
[snipped]
> >> Like you said, filesystems must be rock-solid. Any change to ext2
> >> (outside of bugfixes) would introduce bugs that would need to be worked
> >> out.
>
> > I'd like to second this. There's no better testing ground for a new fs
> > than an OS which is already running without problems. Creating new
> > ext2 bugs will definately hinder development of new fs features.
>
> But we can easily maintain a separate, parallel "ext2dev" tree with the
> latest features, and migrate those features into the solid ext2 tree as
> they prove themselves.
This would work just as well. I would still prefer that it be called ext3
in the kernel source, merely out of paranoia. After all, it IS a third
set of extensions to the original extfs.
Sometimes it's good to be paranoid about changes to the file system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Brutsche
"Be of stout heart, Number One. We've handled the Borg. We can
certainly handle Admiral Jellico." - Jean-Luc Picard
Linux: World Domination. Resistance is futile.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu