On 10/07/2011 11:58 AM, Jeff Putney wrote: > The rescue tool may have a lot of the logic I personally am most > interested in reading. Thank you for that! > >> The problem is people won't just read it, they will use it. > > I've read every last line of the current btrfsck, even though it > doesn't do anything. I am interested in the source specifically to > read it. > >> I wrote a >> basic repair tool for a user in Fedora who seemed to have a very >> specific kind of corruption, and earlier this week almost a month after >> my initial repair tool I had to write another tool to go in and just >> pull all his data off his disk because a bug in my repair tool made his >> fs _WORSE_, to the point I'm not sure I can fix it. > > These are specifically the types of one off solutions that are having > to be done because the source hasn't been released for the community > to finish up. > >> Fsck has the >> potential to make any users problems worse, and given the increasing >> number of people putting production systems on btrfs with no backups the >> idea of releasing a unpolished and not fully tested fsck into the world >> is terrifying, and would likely cause long term "I heard that file >> system's fsck tool eats babies" sort of reputation. > > I fail to see the distinction between releasing an unpolished fsck vs > releasing an unpolished fs driver. They are collaborating parts of > the same system. Whether they say btrfsck eats babies or btrfs eats > babies, they are still saying that the babies are getting eaten. > >> Release early and release often is nice for web browsers and desktop >> environments, it's not so nice with things that could result in data >> loss, especially when our user base is growing in leaps and bounds and >> aren't necessarily informed enough on the dangers of using an file >> system that's still under heavy development. > > What you are saying is that the specter of increased data loss somehow > outweighs the combined benefit that the community has to offer. > Unless the current state of the project IS due solely to the work of > Chris and Josef, and you don't feel that the community at large has > provided meaningful contributions, than I think that's a pretty > skeptical and unappreciative attitude towards all of the people who > HAVE contributed to this project. > > The 'specialness' of an fsck tool is highly suspect. Current > development versions of all the other fsck tools are available in > their respective repositories, and yet headlines of their eating > babies are still pretty scarce. > I'm glad that Linus didn't use your logic when it came to releasing > the linux kernel. Do you think the entire linux kernel is more like a > web browser, or a desktop environment? > > This smells more like post hoc justification of being territorial over > a pet project than it does actual reasons for keeping the source a > state secret of oracle. Unless their is no intention of releasing the > source, and Oracle intends to keep it a closed source product for > their own linux distributions alone.
Well you've caught us, this is all just a conspiracy to keep the users under our thumbs and to block out any contributions. Sorry Chris, we kept it up for a good year tho! Josef -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
