| 1 |
Luca Barbato wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>Kumba wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
>>I'm just stating this, because once reiserfs4 goes mainline (I believe |
| 8 |
>>it's in -mm currently), we are bound to have users hitting various bumps |
| 9 |
>>and ruts in the road using it, and if they file bugs to our bugzilla |
| 10 |
>>that aren't related to patches we produce, then they'll likely wind up |
| 11 |
>>closed as invalid and such. This saves the users time, and may get them |
| 12 |
>>the answers they seek (or at least a resolution of some kind). It also |
| 13 |
>>saves our bug-wranglers time by now having to deal with more invalid bugs. |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
>We can always patch the problem in the g-s ^^ |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
>Given reiserfs4 is around for enough time and lots of brave users tested |
| 21 |
>it, it MAY be not so unstable. (still I like jfs and xfs more, and I use |
| 22 |
>them just for transient data (large video and image processing tests and |
| 23 |
>so on)) |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
As a ppc64 arch and can officially state that reiser4fs is very unstable |
| 28 |
under ppc64 as of the last time I checked, which was some where in the |
| 29 |
2.6.12rc cycle plus mm patch. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
That said, we're not RedHat. We ship as MANY features as we can and let |
| 32 |
the user decide. I agree that it is valuable to get reiser4 testing done |
| 33 |
up front. Eventually - some people will use it. Last I checked "I think |
| 34 |
$FOO is stupid" wasn't a valid closure code in bugzilla ;-) |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Omkhar Arasaratnam - Gentoo PPC64 Developer |
| 40 |
omkhar@g.o - http://dev.gentoo.org/~omkhar |
| 41 |
Gentoo Linux / PPC64 Linux: http://ppc64.gentoo.org |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
-- |
| 44 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives