Jeff Garzik wrote:
I disagree completely... it would be an obvious win: people who want stability get that, people who want new features get that too.
And developers have a better outlet for their wacky developmental urges... Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [Ext2-devel] [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3
- From: "Mike Snitzer" <[email protected]>
- Re: [Ext2-devel] [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3
- References:
- [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3
- From: Mingming Cao <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3
- From: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3
- From: Jeff Garzik <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3
- From: Jeff Garzik <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3
- From: Jeff Garzik <[email protected]>
- [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3
- Prev by Date: Re: [Ext2-devel] [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3
- Next by Date: Assumably a BUG in Linux Kernel (scheduler part)
- Previous by thread: Re: [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3
- Next by thread: Re: [Ext2-devel] [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3
- Index(es):
 |