RE: [PATCH 0/3] staging: zcache+ramster: move to new code base andre-merge

[Dan Magenheimer]

[Seth re new redesigned codebase]

> From: Seth Jennings [mailto:sjenning@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 4:33 PM
>
> So I can't support this patchset, citing the performance
> degradation and the fact that this submission is
> unreviewable due to it being one huge monolithic patchset on
> top of an existing codebase.

[Dan re old demo codebase]

> From: Dan Magenheimer
> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 11:48 AM
> Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/4] promote zcache from staging
> 
> Sorry, but FWIW my vote is still a NACK.  IMHO zcache needs major
> work before it should be promoted, and I think we should be spending
> the time fixing the known flaws rather than arguing about promoting
> "demo" code.

:-#

"Well, pahdner," drawls the Colorado cowboy (Dan) to the Texas
cowboy (Seth), "I reckon we gots us a good old fashioned standoff."

"What say we settle this like men, say six-shooters at
twenty paces?"

:-)

Seriously, maybe we should consider a fork?  Zcache and zcache2?

(I am REALLY away from email for a few days starting NOW.)

Dan
--
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/