From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751308AbWF0Iu2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jun 2006 04:50:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751306AbWF0Iu2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jun 2006 04:50:28 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:28578 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932655AbWF0Iu1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jun 2006 04:50:27 -0400 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 01:50:05 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Ingo Molnar Cc: hch@infradead.org, swhiteho@redhat.com, torvalds@osdl.org, teigland@redhat.com, pcaulfie@redhat.com, kanderso@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: GFS2 and DLM Message-Id: <20060627015005.21c20186.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20060627083544.GA32761@elte.hu> References: <1150805833.3856.1356.camel@quoit.chygwyn.com> <20060623144928.GA32694@infradead.org> <20060626200300.GA15424@elte.hu> <20060627063339.GA27938@elte.hu> <20060627000633.91e06155.akpm@osdl.org> <20060627083544.GA32761@elte.hu> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.8.17; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 10:35:44 +0200 Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 08:33:39 +0200 > > Ingo Molnar 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).