On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
No Flame from me. One thing to remember is that Hans and friends _have_ supported R3 for years. This is an undisputed fact. Second third parties have be able to add much function (like journaling) to R3 so the code must be sort of readable... With R4 they have created a new FS that is _fast_ and _can_ do things no other FS can - I also expect they have written cleaner code... Why are we fighting about adding this sort of function to the kernel? Yes it may not be the absolute best way to do things. How many times has tcpip be rewritten for linux? The answer is more than once. Lets put R4 in, see how it works, generalize the ideas and if we have to rewrite and rethink part of it lets do so.
remember that Hans is on record (over a year ago) arguing that R3 should not be fixed becouse R4 was replacing it.
This type of thing is one of the reasons that you see arguments that aren't 'purely code-related' becouse the kernel folks realize that _they_ will have to maintain the code over time, Hans and company will go on and develop R5 (R10, whatever) and consider R4 obsolete and stop maintaining it.
David Lang -- There are two ways of constructing a software design. One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies. And the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. -- C.A.R. Hoare - 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/
