Re: GFS2 and DLM

[Andrew Morton]

On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 10:35:44 +0200
Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> * Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 08:33:39 +0200
> > Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > Isnt this whole episode highly hypocritic to begin with?
> > 
> > Might be, but that's not relevant to GFS2's suitability.
> 
> it is relevant to a certain degree, because it creates a (IMO) false 
> impression of merging showstoppers. After months of being in -mm, and 
> after addressing all issues that were raised (and there was a fair 
> amount of review activity December last year iirc), one week prior the 
> close of the merge window a 'huge' list of issues are raised. (after 
> belovingly calling the GFS2 code a "huge mess", to create a positive and 
> productive tone for the review discussion i guess.)

It's a general problem - our reviewing resources do not have the capacity
to cover our coding resources.  This is especially the case on filesystems.
 We'd have merged (a very different) reiser4 a year ago if things were
in balance.

(and our code-breaking resources appear to exceed our code-fixing resources
too, but that's another topic).
-
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/