Re: [Ext2-devel] [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3

[Michael Poole]

Jeff Garzik writes:

> Theodore Tso wrote:
> > And I'd also dispute with your "weren't really suited for the original
> > ext2-style design" comment.  Ext2/3 was always designed to be
> > extensible from the start, and we've successfully added features quite
> > successfully for quite a while.
> 
> Although not the only disk format change, extents are a pretty big
> one. Will this be the last major on-disk format change?

You keep making "straw that broke the camel's back" type arguments
without saying why this particular straw (rather than the other
compatibility-breaking features that are already in ext3) is the one
that must not be allowed.  Is it a matter of taste, or is there some
objective threshold that extents cross?

> >> Rather than taking another decade to slowly fix ext2 design
> >> decisions, why not move the process along a bit more rapidly?
> >> Release early, release often...
> > I don't think it will be another decade, but yes, regardless of
> > whether we do a code fork or not, it will take time.  Basically, you
> > and the ext2 developers have a disagreement about whether or not a
> > code fork will actually move the process along more quickly or not.
> > Either way, we will be releasing early and often, so people can test
> > it out and comment on it.  Releasing patches to LKML is just the first
> > step in this process.
> 
> I don't see how a larger filesystem codebase could possibly move more
> quickly than a smaller codebase.  You'd have twice as many code paths
> to worry about.

This is also the case when you cut and paste an entire filesystem's
source code, as has been mentioned several times in this thread.

Michael Poole
-
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/