On 23-Jul-06, at 7:48 AM, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
On Sun, 2006-07-23 01:20:40 -0600, Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
There is nothing about small patches that makes them better code.
There
Erm, a small patch is something which should _obviously_ fix one
issue. A small patch, containing at max some 100 lines, can easily be
read and understood.
A complete filesystem (I'm co-maintaining one for an ancient on-disk
format, too) isn't really easy to understand or to verify from looking
at it for 5min.
Nonetheless, "There is nothing about small patches that makes them
better code".
Hans is quite right. Long patches just take longer to read. This can
make them harder to penetrate review, as he describes, with analogy.
is no reason we should favor them, if the developers are willing
to work
on something for 5 years to escape a local optimum, that is often the
RIGHT thing to do.
I give a shit of nothing to some 5 year work if I cannot verify that
it won't hurt me at some point.
Do you really review all patches to ensure this? It is well
understood that only once r4 reaches mainline will it get the wider
testing it must have to shake down.
Lucky Namesys is not deterred by ingratitude or there would be no "5
year work" for us to contemplate at all.
It is importand that we embrace our diversity, and be happy for the
strength it gives us. Some of us are good at small patches that
evolve,
and some are good at escaping local optimums. We all have value,
both
trees and grass have their place in the world.
Just put reiser4 in some GIT tree and publish it. Maybe you can place
it on git.kernel.org .
Why should Hans give up the aspiration to have r4 in mainline due to
a small number of regressive personalities (a.k.a. politics)?
To much of the Linux world R3 has been an extremely valuable
contribution; r4 promises to be even more so.
--T
MfG, JBG
--
Jan-Benedict Glaw [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+49-172-7608481
Signature of: ...und wenn Du denkst, es geht
nicht mehr,
the second : kommt irgendwo ein
Lichtlein her.
