From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932129AbWGQESZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Jul 2006 00:18:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932315AbWGQESZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Jul 2006 00:18:25 -0400 Received: from mailhost.terra.es ([213.4.149.12]:54990 "EHLO csmtpout2.frontal.correo") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932129AbWGQESY convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Jul 2006 00:18:24 -0400 Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 18:55:30 +0200 (added by postmaster@terra.es) From: grundig To: Lexington Luthor Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: reiserFS? Message-Id: <20060716190841.7392e0b2.grundig@teleline.es> In-Reply-To: References: <50d1c22d0607160545rd06c828n55ad9bbbd2f20bfd@mail.gmail.com> <20060716135038.GA8850@merlin.emma.line.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.6 (GTK+ 2.8.18; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org El Sun, 16 Jul 2006 16:29:24 +0100, Lexington Luthor escribió: > I am just saddened that kernel decisions are motivated by politics and a > personal dislike of Hans Reiser rather than technical merit. :( You (and every reiser4 fan that FUDs against linux developers just because he can't understand why reiser4 still is not in) are seriously missing the point. Nobody is oppossing that reiser4 gets into the main linux tree. Let me remember you that Linux has already merged quite a lot of filesystems, including a lot of them that don't even matter in the real world (BeFS, minix, ADFS, AFFS, EFS, VXFS, qnx4fs, sysvfs, ncpfs, codafs. Let me also remember you that we have had other relevant filesystems for year (reiser3, XFS, JFS), and everybody is ok with them, nobody is planning to kill anyone. With this short panoramic view of Linux I find shocking that people dares even to _suggest_ that linux don't want to include a filesystem for "political reasons". Just to point you how wrong you are, compare OCFS2 and GFS. Both of them are clustering filesystems, being OCFS from Oracle and GFS from Redhat. _Both_ filesystems have been asked to be included in the main tree. As for today, only OCFS2 is in (since 2.6.16, after several reviews and after fixing their code like everyone else). GFS still isn't in and seems to need work, but you won't see to the GFS technical leader tell everybody (like Hans has done here) that Linux politics don't allow GFS to go in. Instead of wining, they just go back to work on their issues.