On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 10:35:44 +0200
Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
> * Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 08:33:39 +0200
> > Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Isnt this whole episode highly hypocritic to begin with?
> >
> > Might be, but that's not relevant to GFS2's suitability.
>
> it is relevant to a certain degree, because it creates a (IMO) false
> impression of merging showstoppers. After months of being in -mm, and
> after addressing all issues that were raised (and there was a fair
> amount of review activity December last year iirc), one week prior the
> close of the merge window a 'huge' list of issues are raised. (after
> belovingly calling the GFS2 code a "huge mess", to create a positive and
> productive tone for the review discussion i guess.)
It's a general problem - our reviewing resources do not have the capacity
to cover our coding resources. This is especially the case on filesystems.
We'd have merged (a very different) reiser4 a year ago if things were
in balance.
(and our code-breaking resources appear to exceed our code-fixing resources
too, but that's another topic).
-
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]
