[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hmm.. let's see.. I said Reiser isn't in because it shouldn't be > screwing with > >the VFS, and said stuff should be done separate from the Reiser4 filesystem. > > We don't touch a line of VFS code. We look like a normal fs at the interface.
Shall we send in a file labeled reiservfs.c containing the plugin layer? That will really test whether the Reiser name is cursed that way, yes? There has been no response to the technical email asking for what exactly it is that is duplicative, and what exactly it is that ought to be changed in how the code works, as opposed to what file the code is placed in, or who is considered its maintainer. There has been no response to the questions about whether the difference between class and instance makes our layer non-duplicative. Perhaps no response was possible? Hans
