From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262725AbTLBSN5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:13:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262694AbTLBSNx (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:13:53 -0500 Received: from phoenix.infradead.org ([213.86.99.234]:4100 "EHLO phoenix.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262731AbTLBSL5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:11:57 -0500 Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 18:11:46 +0000 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Larry McVoy , Murthy Kambhampaty , "'Marcelo Tosatti'" , Russell Cattelan , Nathan Scott , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com, Andrew Morton Subject: Re: XFS for 2.4 Message-ID: <20031202181146.A27567@infradead.org> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , Larry McVoy , Murthy Kambhampaty , 'Marcelo Tosatti' , Russell Cattelan , Nathan Scott , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com, Andrew Morton References: <2D92FEBFD3BE1346A6C397223A8DD3FC0924C8@THOR.goeci.com> <20031202180251.GB17045@work.bitmover.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20031202180251.GB17045@work.bitmover.com>; from lm@bitmover.com on Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 10:02:51AM -0800 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 10:02:51AM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote: > Not your call, it's Marcelo's call. And I and he have both suggested > that the way to get XFS in is to have someone with some clout in the file > system area agree that it is fine. It's a perfectly reasonable request > and the longer it goes unanswered the less likely it is that XFS will get > integrated. The fact that $XFS_USER wants it in is $XFS_USER's problem. > $VFS_MAINTAINER needs to say "hey, this looks good, what's the fuss about?" > and I suspect that Marcelo would be more interested. I think you're missing the point. The patches have been review many times, they've been posted to lkml many time with the request for comment and they've been merged into 2.5 in almost exactly that form. > It is also not unreasonable to reject a set of changes right before > freezing 2.4. 2.4 is supposed to be dead. That's indeed a point and a very resonable one. But a few of the patches Nathan has in that BK repo have been submited for more than year again and again, and Marcelo's reply (for those 10% of the cases that a reply existed at all) was something along the lines "let's postpone it after the next release". In my opinion that's not the right attitude from a kernel maintainer to someone who wants to contribute major work.