On Thu, 26 Feb 1998, Phil Brutsche wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Feb 1998, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
>
> > 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
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu