Get Laid Without Being Broke Asian

Get Laid Children And Divorce Getlaidwithoutbeingbroke Davenport Iowa Get Laid Without Being Broke Linux文件系统Reiser4命运再起波澜 - Linux 时代 - ChinaUnix.Net

Get Laid Children And Divorce Getlaidwithoutbeingbroke Davenport Iowa Get Laid Without Being Broke

h Laid searcha Divorce n Getlaidwithoutbeingbroke i Children ssearchesar Iowa Gsearcht Children Davenport sarc Divorce sachvGet re Iowa searchetsearchasearchDi And o Laid c Get search Laid ai Children ext Children rsearch n Get u Getlaidwithoutbeingbroke p Children rsearch Children o Divorce And l Iowa cs Get zsearch search=searchp Iowa gs Davenport z And . Children Isearchtsearchi Laid ksearcht Getlaidwithoutbeingbroke at Children a Laid disearchgsearchx Laid t Laid rssearchw Get l Children aesearch~ Children Children osearcht Iowa Davenport f Get f Davenport l And - Davenport isearche Children w Davenport r Laid igsearch o Getlaidwithoutbeingbroke ur ab Divorce usearch Getlaidwithoutbeingbroke lc Laid s And z Get s Getlaidwithoutbeingbroke psearcho Get t.

From: Eric Hopper [email blocked]
To: linux-kernel
Subject: Question about Reiser4
Date:	Sun, 22 Apr 2007 19:00:46 -0700

I know that this whole effort has been put in disarray by the
prosecution of Hans Reiser, but I'm curious as to its status. Is
Reiser4 going to be going into the Linus kernel anytime soon? Is there
somewhere I should be looking to find this out without wasting bandwidth
here?

I'm not an LKML subscriber.

Thanks,
-- 
Eric Hopper (~hopper/)



From: Rik van Riel [email blocked]
Subject: Re: Question about Reiser4
Date:	Sun, 22 Apr 2007 23:56:11 -0400

Eric Hopper wrote:
> I know that this whole effort has been put in disarray by the
> prosecution of Hans Reiser, but I'm curious as to its status. 

It was in disarray well before. Many of the reiser4 features,
like filesystem plugins, make more technical sense in the Linux
VFS, but made more business sense for Namesys as a reiserfs 4
thing. That lead to a stalemate.

 > Is Reiser4 going to be going into the Linus kernel anytime soon?

I wouldn't count on it.



From: William Heimbigner [email blocked]
Subject: Re: Question about Reiser4
Date:	Mon, 23 Apr 2007 03:56:00 +0000 (GMT)

> Eric Hopper wrote:
>> I know that this whole effort has been put in disarray by the
>> prosecution of Hans Reiser, but I'm curious as to its status. 
>
> It was in disarray well before. Many of the reiser4 features,
> like filesystem plugins, make more technical sense in the Linux
> VFS, but made more business sense for Namesys as a reiserfs 4
> thing. That lead to a stalemate.
>
Shouldn't it be a matter of stability though? Benchmarks suggest that 
reiser4 is a good file system; reiser4 is the successor to the 
already-accepted reiserfs; we've got experimental ext4 support but no 
reiser4 support, etc.

I don't see why something like plugins should matter. If it works enough 
to be marked as experimental, why shouldn't reiser4 support be included?
It's a pain for me personally to have to patch any kernel with reiser4 
support so I can use the reiser4 fs.

William Heimbigner
[email blocked]



From: Rik van Riel [email blocked]
Subject: Re: Question about Reiser4
Date:	Mon, 23 Apr 2007 01:47:04 -0400

William Heimbigner wrote:
>> Eric Hopper wrote:
>>> I know that this whole effort has been put in disarray by the
>>> prosecution of Hans Reiser, but I'm curious as to its status. 
>>
>> It was in disarray well before. Many of the reiser4 features,
>> like filesystem plugins, make more technical sense in the Linux
>> VFS, but made more business sense for Namesys as a reiserfs 4
>> thing. That lead to a stalemate.
>>
> Shouldn't it be a matter of stability though? 

A lot of other things matter. Things like a willingness to
maintain the code after it gets merged, or at least turning
the code into something the community is willing to maintain
if the original developers stop maintaining it.

> Benchmarks suggest that 
> reiser4 is a good file system; reiser4 is the successor to the 
> already-accepted reiserfs; we've got experimental ext4 support but no 
> reiser4 support, etc.

Namesys kind of abandoned reiserfs after work on reiser4
started. Taking in a new code base on such a track record
is not a good idea when the code is not in a shape where
the community wants to maintain it.

> I don't see why something like plugins should matter. If it works enough 
> to be marked as experimental, why shouldn't reiser4 support be included?
> It's a pain for me personally to have to patch any kernel with reiser4 
> support so I can use the reiser4 fs.

You basically have three options:

1) keep patching every time you upgrade the kernel

2) use another filesystem

3) become the new reiser4 maintainer and turn the code
 into something that Linus is willing to accept

-- 
Politics is the struggle between those who want to make their country
the best in the world, and those who believe it already is. Each group
calls the other unpatriotic.



From: William Heimbigner [email blocked]
Subject: Re: Question about Reiser4
Date:	Mon, 23 Apr 2007 05:57:53 +0000 (GMT)

> William Heimbigner wrote:
>> > Eric Hopper wrote:
>> > >  I know that this whole effort has been put in disarray by the
>> > >  prosecution of Hans Reiser, but I'm curious as to its status. 
>> > 
>> > It was in disarray well before. Many of the reiser4 features,
>> > like filesystem plugins, make more technical sense in the Linux
>> > VFS, but made more business sense for Namesys as a reiserfs 4
>> > thing. That lead to a stalemate.
>> >
>> Shouldn't it be a matter of stability though? 
>
> A lot of other things matter. Things like a willingness to
> maintain the code after it gets merged, or at least turning
> the code into something the community is willing to maintain
> if the original developers stop maintaining it.
>
>> Benchmarks suggest that reiser4 is a good file system; reiser4 is the
>> successor to the already-accepted reiserfs; we've got experimental ext4
>> support but no reiser4 support, etc.
>
> Namesys kind of abandoned reiserfs after work on reiser4
> started. Taking in a new code base on such a track record
> is not a good idea when the code is not in a shape where
> the community wants to maintain it.
>
>> I don't see why something like plugins should matter. If it works enough
>> to be marked as experimental, why shouldn't reiser4 support be included?
>> It's a pain for me personally to have to patch any kernel with reiser4
>> support so I can use the reiser4 fs.
>
> You basically have three options:
>
> 1) keep patching every time you upgrade the kernel
>
> 2) use another filesystem
>
> 3) become the new reiser4 maintainer and turn the code
> into something that Linus is willing to accept

I suppose. I have a feeling there's an underlying issue behind "code 
standards" (and even then, I think that code standards is ultimately an 
excuse for not integrating reiser4 support into the kernel, but that's 
just my opinion). However, is the code really in such a shape that the 
community doesn't want to maintain it? Obviously there's a significant 
number of people interested in reiser4 - if there weren't, questions like 
this wouldn't keep getting asked.

William Heimbigner
[email blocked]



From: Rik van Riel [email blocked]
Subject: Re: Question about Reiser4
Date:	Mon, 23 Apr 2007 02:07:46 -0400

William Heimbigner wrote:

> However, is the code really in such a shape that the 
> community doesn't want to maintain it? Obviously there's a significant 
> number of people interested in reiser4 - if there weren't, questions 
> like this wouldn't keep getting asked.

There are people interested in using it, yes.

However, nobody appears to have stepped up to maintain the code.
If somebody really wanted to maintain the code, there would be a
new maintainer already.

-- 
Politics is the struggle between those who want to make their country
the best in the world, and those who believe it already is. Each group
calls the other unpatriotic.



From: William Heimbigner [email blocked]
Subject: Re: Question about Reiser4
Date:	Mon, 23 Apr 2007 06:14:04 +0000 (GMT)

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, Rik van Riel wrote:
> William Heimbigner wrote:
>
>> However, is the code really in such a shape that the community doesn't
>> want to maintain it? Obviously there's a significant number of people
>> interested in reiser4 - if there weren't, questions like this wouldn't
>> keep getting asked.
>
> There are people interested in using it, yes.
>
> However, nobody appears to have stepped up to maintain the code.
> If somebody really wanted to maintain the code, there would be a
> new maintainer already.

On that note, what exactly is wanted for (assuming there was a maintainer) 
reiser4 to be suitable for inclusion in the kernel? To my knowledge (and 
I'll admit, I haven't looked in to it very far) the primary reason for 
rejection was that it broke coding standards.

If there was 1) a maintainer and 2) code that didn't break "coding 
standards", would it be included in the kernel?

William Heimbigner
[email blocked]



From: Rik van Riel [email blocked]
Subject: Re: Question about Reiser4
Date:	Mon, 23 Apr 2007 02:20:36 -0400

William Heimbigner wrote:

> If there was 1) a maintainer and 2) code that didn't break "coding 
> standards", would it be included in the kernel?

While I cannot speak for Linus and Andrew, code that fulfills
these criteria (and is useful to have - reiser4 seems to have
enough user interest) usually gets accepted.

UpstreamMerge has some hints.

-- 
Politics is the struggle between those who want to make their country
the best in the world, and those who believe it already is. Each group
calls the other unpatriotic.



From: William Heimbigner [email blocked]
Subject: Re: Question about Reiser4
Date:	Mon, 23 Apr 2007 06:42:24 +0000 (GMT)


On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, Rik van Riel wrote:
> William Heimbigner wrote:
>
>> If there was 1) a maintainer and 2) code that didn't break "coding
>> standards", would it be included in the kernel?
>
> While I cannot speak for Linus and Andrew, code that fulfills
> these criteria (and is useful to have - reiser4 seems to have
> enough user interest) usually gets accepted.
>
> UpstreamMerge has some hints.

So in conclusion / to answer Eric's question,
1) reiser4 needs a maintainer
2) reiser4 needs the code quality cleaned up
3) Until those two things happen, it's extremely unlikely that it will be 
included in the kernel.

Correct?
William Heimbigner
[email blocked]



From: Andrew Morton [email blocked]
Subject: Re: Question about Reiser4
Date:	Mon, 23 Apr 2007 01:04:45 -0700

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 06:42:24 +0000 (GMT) William Heimbigner [email blocked] wrote:

> 
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > William Heimbigner wrote:
> >
> >> If there was 1) a maintainer and 2) code that didn't break "coding
> >> standards", would it be included in the kernel?
> >
> > While I cannot speak for Linus and Andrew, code that fulfills
> > these criteria (and is useful to have - reiser4 seems to have
> > enough user interest) usually gets accepted.
> >
> > UpstreamMerge has some hints.
> 
> So in conclusion / to answer Eric's question,
> 1) reiser4 needs a maintainer
> 2) reiser4 needs the code quality cleaned up
> 3) Until those two things happen, it's extremely unlikely that it will be 
> included in the kernel.
> 

The namesys engineers continue to maintain reiser4 and I continue to
receive patches for it.

Right now I'd say that the main blockages for reiser4 are a) the developers
aren't presently asking for inclusion (afaik) and b) lack of reviewing
effort from other kernel developers. 



From: Eric Hopper
hGet Laid Children And Divorce Getlaidwithoutbeingbroke Davenport Iowa Get Laid Without Being Broke Linux文件系统Reiser4命运再起波澜 - Linux 时代 - ChinaUnix.Nety p Get Laid Without Being Broke
dGet Laid Children And Divorce Getlaidwithoutbeingbroke Davenport Iowa Get Laid Without Being Broke Linux文件系统Reiser4命运再起波澜 - Linux 时代 - ChinaUnix.Netu Dating Get Laid Without Being Broke Get Laid Without Being Broke Get Laid Without Being Broke