In <E12ywQA-000532-00@the-village.bc.nu> Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk) wrote:
>> a good job; why would not you finally adopt their FS into the kernel???
> Because we are in a code freeze. The same reasoning with NWFS, JFFS, XFS, EXT3
It does not matter. Not at all. Write support to hpfs (or was it even
additional filesystem like qnxfs?) was added while 2.2 was in code freeze:
"users who are not using hpfs can not be affected anyway". I fail to see why
situation with reiserfs is different. Is it still chnages something not
related to reiserfs itself ? If not then it can be added in code freeze,
after 2.4 is released - the old argument holds: ones who did not used
reiserfs are not affected.
> And as far as -ac patches go I've send them same to all parties - No. For
> a change that big so close to a final 2.4.0 release its for Linus to break
> the stated rules if anyone does.
To be exact it's not break of stated rules (drivers and isolated changes like
filesystem additions was previously added in code freeze time). But such
change is big enough to need Linus itself for decision - everyone agree here
(including Reiser itself AFAIK).
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 07 2000 - 21:00:23 EST