Re: [PATCH] LogFS take three

[David Woodhouse]

On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 21:19 +0200, JÃrn Engel wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2007 15:07:05 -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
> > 
> > I've been semi watching this, and the only comment I really can give
> > is that I hate the name.  To me, logfs implies a filesystem for
> > logging purposes, not for Flash hardware with wear leveling issues to
> > be taken into account.
> 
> Yeah, well, ...
> 
> Two years ago when I started all this, I was looking for a good name.
> All I could come up with sounded stupid, so I picked "LogFS" as a code
> name.  As soon as I find a better name, the code name should get
> replaced.
> 
> By now I still don't have anything better.  All alternatives that were
> proposed are just as bad - with the added disadvantage of being new and
> not established yet.  My hope of ever finding a better name is nearly
> zero. 

Personally I'd just go for 'JFFS3'. After all, it has a better claim to
the name than either of its predecessors :)

-- 
dwmw2

-
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/