Hi.
I wish mean: I can't.
I now for the btrfs maturity. But it's my unique alternative.
I understand. For me this bug should be important because it block all
the system, since Linux 4.1+
It's exactly what I wish, pay to have a quick fix. I don't think I wish
too much, just fix this bug and put to upstream.
Thanks for your time to read me, and thanks for confirm this bug is not
forget. A least somebody have take time to read me, great thanks for this.
Cheers,
On 05/12/17 04:01, Duncan wrote:
> alpha_one_x86 posted on Thu, 11 May 2017 17:25:32 +0200 as excerpted:
>
>> Up plz, I can work with this bug.
>>
>>
>> On 05/11/17 01:39, alpha_one_x86 wrote:
>>> Hi, this bug is very blocking for me:
>>>
>>> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=195257
>>>
>>> The server is backup server, I btrfs receive (with and without -p), and
>>> of course btrfs subvolume delete The volume is 70TB, then I use
>>> space_cache=v2
> Since you can work with it, do so. We're not stopping you. =:^)
>
> Or did you mean /can't/?
>
> Keep in mind that while btrfs is considered stabilizing, on this list at
> least it's not considered fully stable and mature. If you want/need a
> filesystem that's stable and mature, there's others out there that fill
> that requirement. We don't claim btrfs does. Your system, your choice
> of filesystem and with it, filesystem maturity.
>
> Meanwhile, btrfs devs have a lot of stuff on their plate, including bugs
> they're already working on and further development, and (as with most
> devs) aren't going to take kindly to demands that they work on *YOUR* bug
> *RIGHT* *NOW*. That, if anything, is about the fastest way I know of to
> ensure that working on it is /deprioritized/, with stuff that would have
> been put off to work on it, done first, instead.
>
> Unless of course you're paying the salary of that dev. If you are, then
> you get to call the shots, to some degree at least. Good devs tend to
> find other employment if you're too controlling, tho, and they can
> because good devs are in enough demand they often pick their jobs from a
> list of offers, and they tend to be motivated by more than money so if
> you're too demanding you can't expect to simply outbid everyone else on
> the list, either, no matter how much money you have. And any dev skilled
> enough to regularly get their work into the mainline kernel can be
> considered a good dev, so...
>
> So I'd suggest that if it's high enough priority to you, you'll find a
> kernel dev and sponsor them to work on it for you. But be warned, if
> they're not already a btrfs dev, it'll take them some time to come upto
> speed. Otherwise, you'll wait in line with everyone else... unless you
> push too much, in which case your reports will as I said get
> deprioritized, and if noone else reports them, your bugs may not get
> handled until there's nothing else waiting... which could easily push
> resolution past 2027... yes, a decade or more out.
>
--
alpha_one_x86/BRULE Herman <alpha_one_...@first-world.info>
Main developer of Supercopier/Ultracopier/CatchChallenger, Esourcing and server
management
IT, OS, technologies, research & development, security and business department
--
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
