Re: GFS2 and DLM
- From: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 01:50:05 -0700
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 10:35:44 +0200
Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
* Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 08:33:39 +0200
Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Isnt this whole episode highly hypocritic to begin with?
Might be, but that's not relevant to GFS2's suitability.
it is relevant to a certain degree, because it creates a (IMO) false
impression of merging showstoppers. After months of being in -mm, and
after addressing all issues that were raised (and there was a fair
amount of review activity December last year iirc), one week prior the
close of the merge window a 'huge' list of issues are raised. (after
belovingly calling the GFS2 code a "huge mess", to create a positive and
productive tone for the review discussion i guess.)
It's a general problem - our reviewing resources do not have the capacity
to cover our coding resources. This is especially the case on filesystems.
We'd have merged (a very different) reiser4 a year ago if things were
in balance.
(and our code-breaking resources appear to exceed our code-fixing resources
too, but that's another topic).
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: GFS2 and DLM
- From: Ingo Molnar
- Re: GFS2 and DLM
- References:
- GFS2 and DLM
- From: Steven Whitehouse
- Re: GFS2 and DLM
- From: Christoph Hellwig
- Re: GFS2 and DLM
- From: Ingo Molnar
- Re: GFS2 and DLM
- From: Ingo Molnar
- Re: GFS2 and DLM
- From: Andrew Morton
- Re: GFS2 and DLM
- From: Ingo Molnar
- GFS2 and DLM
- Prev by Date: Re: GFS2 and DLM
- Next by Date: 2.6.17-mm3
- Previous by thread: Re: GFS2 and DLM
- Next by thread: Re: GFS2 and DLM
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|