Re: [PATCH][2/2] SquashFS

[Mws]

Pavel Machek wrote:

> Hi!
>
> [I'm not sure if I should further feed the trolls.]
>  
>
> > > Yes, it *is* rather unfair. Sorry about that. But having 2 different
> > > limited compressed filesystems in kernel does not seem good to me.
> > >      
>
>  
>
> > what do you need e.g. reiserfs 4 for? or jfs? or xfs? does not ext2/3 
> > the journalling job also?
> > is there really a need for cifs and samba and ncpfs and nfs v3 and nfs 
> > v4? why?
> >    
>
> Take a look at debate that preceded xfs merge. And btw reiserfs4 is
> *not* merged.
>
> And people merging xfs/reiserfs4/etc did address problems pointed out
> in their code.
> 								Pavel
>  
i do not know if i act like a troll - i think a troll is something 
totally different.

yes of course i know xfs or e.g. the kernel version named debate. but - 
seriously - is it worth spending
so many time to discuss instead of just fixing the code meanwhile?
that is the main problem also in some other open source projects.
discussing instead of developing - not really efficient.

ps. FYI no, i am not a troll, and i am also taking part in some open 
source projects contributing code.

regards
marcel


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/