| 1 |
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Richard Yao <ryao@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Things that provide us with improvements over what we have are |
| 3 |
> definitely worth consideration as GSoC projects. However, what is |
| 4 |
> accepted ultimately depends on not only feedback from a potential |
| 5 |
> mentor, but also a vote of Gentoo developers. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Honestly, this seems like a less-than-ideal fit for Gentoo. We don't |
| 8 |
really use ZFS at all, other than as yet another package in our tree. |
| 9 |
Any of the Mozilla/ GSoC ideas would make as much sense to deliver as |
| 10 |
part of the Gentoo GSoC. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Now, if this were about integrating auto-snapshots into the package |
| 13 |
manager, (like can be done with snapper), etc, then I could see more |
| 14 |
relevance (though it probably wouldn't rise to a full project). I |
| 15 |
could also see some kind of project to integrate advanced filesystem |
| 16 |
features into core elements of our distro across many filesystems |
| 17 |
(though I don't really see the relevance for reflinks in particular, |
| 18 |
and they only apply to COW filesystems anyway). |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
This just seems like a ZFS project, and not like a Gentoo project. |
| 21 |
I'd say the same if this were about adding a mute button to tabs in |
| 22 |
Chromium, or fixing the offline btrfsck, or whatever. All of those |
| 23 |
things would be useful to Gentoo, but only insofar as they'd be useful |
| 24 |
to anybody. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Rich |
Archives