Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Nikita, I respectfully disagree with what you say about the state of our > atomicity code. It is not so far away as you describe, and probably 6 > man weeks work could polish it off. You don't see the value in what I > define as useful, namely atomicity without isolation. Since you don't > see that, it is harder for you to see that something is close to working > and just needs 6 weeks of someone who groks what I am asking for.
No, I see the value of "atomicity", and think it is very useful. What I don't see the value of is the making of premature claims. _When_ reiser4 has atomic write(2), you have full right to call it atomic, not before. _When_ reiser4 is tested through objective benchmark-set exercising various workloads, you can refer to these benchmarks as the proof of reiser4 technical superiority, not before. On a more personal note, I invested large amount of my time and effort into developing reiser4, and I feel attached to it and to the great ideas embodied in it. For reiser4 to rot on the forgotten shelf in obscurity is the thing I want least. I want it to be included into mainline kernel, but for this to happen, you have to take more realistic stance towards err... reality. > > Hans Nikita.
