2007/5/21, James Rayner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
(snip)
Ok, that's different. Although I don't agree on a few points, it's a
matter of views so your reasons are perfectly valid and now I
understand why you don't want to include reiser4. Thanks.
--
Jaroslaw Swierczynski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
www.archl
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 01:36:38PM +0200, Jaroslaw Swierczynski wrote:
> 2007/5/21, Attila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > I'm not a dev but from my view it doesn't make sense that because if the
> > devs
> > don't use reiser4 than they can't guarantee that it runs stable. A
> > filesystem
> > is to
2007/5/21, Attila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> I'm not a dev but from my view it doesn't make sense that because if the devs
> don't use reiser4 than they can't guarantee that it runs stable. A filesystem
> is too important to include only the patch and see if it compiles. And making
> own tests costs
On Sonntag, 20. Mai 2007 09:59 Jaroslaw Swierczynski wrote:
>> ABS is there for you, just add reiser4 to kernel26.
>
> Ok, you are the developers but I would prefer to hear your reasons.
I'm not a dev but from my view it doesn't make sense that because if the devs
don't use reiser4 than they can
2007/5/20, Jan de Groot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I don't worry about the reiser4progs, they're just some tools just like
> e2fsprogs and xfsprogs. What worries me more is grub. When I tried
> reiser4 a long while ago, the grub patch didn't apply on our version of
> grub.
I've just tried and the patc
On Sat, 2007-05-19 at 22:40 +0200, Jaroslaw Swierczynski wrote:
> I'm not sure whether this was discussed before (I mean recently, it
> might have been brought up a long time ago but a lot has changed
> since).
>
> Althought reiser4 still has not accepted by Linus, it seems it's
> fairly stable an
2007/5/20, James Rayner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 04:35:56PM -0700, eliott wrote:
> >
> > My opinion is: I think it is a bad idea to include reiser4 in the base
> > kernel.
> >
> ditto.
>
> ABS is there for you, just add reiser4 to kernel26.
Ok, you are the developers but I w
On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 04:35:56PM -0700, eliott wrote:
> > "Jaroslaw Swierczynski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Opinions?
>
> My opinion is: I think it is a bad idea to include reiser4 in the base kernel.
>
ditto.
ABS is there for you, just add reiser4 to kernel26.
James
__
> "Jaroslaw Swierczynski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Opinions?
My opinion is: I think it is a bad idea to include reiser4 in the base kernel.
___
arch mailing list
arch@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
Saturday 19 May 2007, Jaroslaw Swierczynski wrote:
| [...] And even kernel developers say Reiser4
| doesn't have to be bugless to be included.
yea! if it would be essential to be bugless, the kernel tree would be
much smaller then it is now.
- D
--
.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸.
I've googled a bit and found a recent (the end of April) discussion on
LKML. Briefly put, it turns out the main reasons for not including
Reiser4 in the kernel are that its code is not compatible with the
kernel's coding standards and that functionality Reiser4 provides as
plugins would make more s
2007/5/19, Mircea Bardac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> As far as I know, one of the reasons Reiser4 wasn't accepted from the
> beginning was that it modifies structures of_the/expored_by the VFS kernel
> subsystem. This is needed to provide access to the features Reiser4 brings
> new.
So it does affect o
2007/5/19, Yonathan Dossow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> IMHO, if you want reiser4, use a kernel that includes the patch, like
> kernel26mm
I think there is a difference between one reiser4 and many other new
features included in the kernel26mm. Besides, if I just wanted to use
reiser4, I woudn't come he
2007/5/19, RedShift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> IMO: No no no and again: no. We already have too many packages that have
> patches. I'm very against.
Sorry but that's hardly a reason. Packages are not patched just
because patching is cool. If you know a package which is unnecessarily
patched then tel
On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 10:40:22PM +0200, Jaroslaw Swierczynski wrote:
> I'm not sure whether this was discussed before (I mean recently, it
> might have been brought up a long time ago but a lot has changed
> since).
>
> Althought reiser4 still has not accepted by Linus, it seems it's
> fairly st
On Saturday 19 May 2007 22.40.22 Jaroslaw Swierczynski wrote:
> I'm not sure whether this was discussed before (I mean recently, it
> might have been brought up a long time ago but a lot has changed
> since).
>
> Althought reiser4 still has not accepted by Linus, it seems it's
> fairly stable and v
On Saturday 19 May 2007 23:40:22 Jaroslaw Swierczynski wrote:
> Althought reiser4 still has not accepted by Linus, it seems it's
> fairly stable and very popular. I've just had a look at the reiser4
> patch [1] and it seems it does not modify the kernel in a way which
> could disrupt its normal opr
Jaroslaw Swierczynski wrote:
> I'm not sure whether this was discussed before (I mean recently, it
> might have been brought up a long time ago but a lot has changed
> since).
>
> Althought reiser4 still has not accepted by Linus, it seems it's
> fairly stable and very popular. I've just had a loo
I'm not sure whether this was discussed before (I mean recently, it
might have been brought up a long time ago but a lot has changed
since).
Althought reiser4 still has not accepted by Linus, it seems it's
fairly stable and very popular. I've just had a look at the reiser4
patch [1] and it seems i
19 matches
Mail list logo
