From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030275AbWGTGwU (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jul 2006 02:52:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030282AbWGTGwU (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jul 2006 02:52:20 -0400 Received: from mail.phnxsoft.com ([195.227.45.4]:26383 "EHLO posthamster.phnxsoft.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030275AbWGTGwT (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jul 2006 02:52:19 -0400 Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 08:52:07 +0200 Message-Id: <200607200652.k6K6q771011722@posthamster.phnxsoft.com> From: Tilman Schmidt Subject: Re: "Why Reuser 4 still is not in" doc To: Diego Calleja MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: Theodore Tso , Lexington.Luthor@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20060716161631.GA29437@httrack.com> <20060716162831.GB22562@zeus.uziel.local> <20060716165648.GB6643@thunk.org> <20060716174804.GA23114@thunk.org> <20060716220115.a1891231.diegocg@gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: 3.561 (***) AWL,BAYES_95 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 22:01:15 +0200, Diego Calleja wrote: > Maybe it's too late and reiser 4 will get in in the next release, but > I've written this doc into the kernelnewbies' wiki: > http://wiki.kernelnewbies.org/WhyReiser4IsNotIn . If you disagree with > something in that doc, edit it or just answer to this mail what you want > to see in it and I'll add it myself. It could be improved in two ways in order to better convince people: Firstly, mention some (perhaps even all) of the actual technical issues preventing the inclusion of Reiser4. Right now, you are giving much space to the political issues (or their non-existence). This answers a different question ("Why we are fed up with the Reiser4 discussion") than the one in the title, and in the worst case might leave a reader with the impression that political reasons are more important after all. Secondly, the questions in the FAQ part should probably be put in a less loaded form. For example, Q1 could just read objectively: "Why can't Reiser4 be included as an experimental feature?" As it stands now, I fear too many people's reaction upon reading it will be: "That's not my question." At least leave off the plaintive initial "but" on Q1 and Q2. It puts off the readers you want to convince. HTH Tilman