Gerrit Huizenga wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 14:55:56 EDT, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Because it's called backwards compat, when it isn't?
Because it is very difficult to find out which set of kernels you are
locked out of?
Because the filesystem upgrade is stealthy, occurring as it does on the
first data write?
Actually, the *only* point being contended here is running older
kernels on some newer filesystems (created originally with a newer
kernel), right?
Or do you have examples of where current kernels could not deal
with an ext3 feature at some point in time?
I would argue that 0.001% of all Linux *users* actually worry about
this - most of them are right here on the development mailing list.
So, that group is more vocal, for sure. But, if it works for 99.99+%
users, aren't we still on the good path, from the point of view of
those people who actually *use* Linux the most?
The overall objection is to treating ext3 as a highly mutable,
one-size-fits-all filesystem.
Maybe there is value in moving some reiser4 concepts -- a set of
metadata+algorithm plugins -- to the VFS level. I dunno.
But for ext3 specifically, it seems like bolting on extents, 48bit,
delayed allocation, and other new features weren't really suited for the
original ext2-style design. Outside of the support (and marketing,
because that's all version numbers are in the end) issues already
mentioned, I think it falls into the nebulous realm of "taste."
Rather than taking another decade to slowly fix ext2 design decisions,
why not move the process along a bit more rapidly? Release early,
release often...
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
