Still waiting. I thought it was ging to eventually be included. What's
holding it up?
On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 15:28 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
> Still waiting. I thought it was ging to eventually be included. What's
> holding it up?
Is someone running a "lets all complain on lkml about reiser4" campaign?
This was asked and answered 2 weeks ago, please read the archives.
(and it was asked last week and we then pointed at the archives as well)
On Saturday 14 January 2006 12:08, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 15:28 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
> > Still waiting. I thought it was ging to eventually be included. What's
> > holding it up?
>
> Is someone running a "lets all complain on lkml about reiser4" campaign?
> This was asked and answered 2 weeks ago, please read the archives.
> (and it was asked last week and we then pointed at the archives as well)
Maciej Soltysiak answered the question two weeks ago. But he started his mail
with "I am not the r4 spokesman [...]". So could anybody write some words who
really knows?
--
Christian
On Sat, 2006-01-14 at 13:22 +0100, Hesse, Christian wrote:
> On Saturday 14 January 2006 12:08, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 15:28 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
> > > Still waiting. I thought it was ging to eventually be included. What's
> > > holding it up?
> >
> > Is someone running a "lets all complain on lkml about reiser4" campaign?
> > This was asked and answered 2 weeks ago, please read the archives.
> > (and it was asked last week and we then pointed at the archives as well)
>
> Maciej Soltysiak answered the question two weeks ago. But he started his mail
> with "I am not the r4 spokesman [...]". So could anybody write some words who
> really knows?
if you want an answer from the reiserfs people... why don't you ask on
[email protected] ... that's the dedicated list after all ;-)
On Saturday 14 January 2006 06:08, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 15:28 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
> > Still waiting. I thought it was ging to eventually be included. What's
> > holding it up?
>
> Is someone running a "lets all complain on lkml about reiser4" campaign?
> This was asked and answered 2 weeks ago, please read the archives.
> (and it was asked last week and we then pointed at the archives as well)
It being ask since its important to many people not all of whom read lkml
or check archives as diligently as they might.
I hope the reiserfs people are ready soon to have their code reviewed again.
Hope that this time its just a code review and does not degenerate as has
happened.
Ed Tomlinson
On Sat, 2006-01-14 at 11:04 -0500, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> On Saturday 14 January 2006 06:08, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 15:28 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
> > > Still waiting. I thought it was ging to eventually be included. What's
> > > holding it up?
> >
> > Is someone running a "lets all complain on lkml about reiser4" campaign?
> > This was asked and answered 2 weeks ago, please read the archives.
> > (and it was asked last week and we then pointed at the archives as well)
>
> It being ask since its important to many people not all of whom read lkml
> or check archives as diligently as they might.
>
> I hope the reiserfs people are ready soon to have their code reviewed again.
> Hope that this time its just a code review and does not degenerate as has
> happened.
Um, it was just a code review last time...
Lee
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-01-14 at 13:22 +0100, Hesse, Christian wrote:
>
>> On Saturday 14 January 2006 12:08, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 15:28 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Still waiting. I thought it was ging to eventually be included. What's
>>>> holding it up?
>>>>
>>> Is someone running a "lets all complain on lkml about reiser4" campaign?
>>> This was asked and answered 2 weeks ago, please read the archives.
>>> (and it was asked last week and we then pointed at the archives as well)
>>>
>> Maciej Soltysiak answered the question two weeks ago. But he started his mail
>> with "I am not the r4 spokesman [...]". So could anybody write some words who
>> really knows?
>>
>
> if you want an answer from the reiserfs people... why don't you ask on
> [email protected] ... that's the dedicated list after all ;-)
>
>
>
I'm sorry - I thought this was a technical forum. I didn't know asking
about the status of a merge was a politically incorrect subject. Could
someone please post a list of taboo subjects so that I don't ask the
wrong question in the future?
On Sat, 2006-01-14 at 16:17 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
> Could
> someone please post a list of taboo subjects so that I don't ask the
> wrong question in the future?
Anything that you could easily get an answer to by searching the list
archives.
Lee
Lee Revell wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-01-14 at 16:17 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
>
>> Could
>> someone please post a list of taboo subjects so that I don't ask the
>> wrong question in the future?
>>
>
> Anything that you could easily get an answer to by searching the list
> archives.
>
> Lee
>
I am not going to search the archives before asking a question.
On Sat, 2006-01-14 at 19:23 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
>
> Lee Revell wrote:
> > On Sat, 2006-01-14 at 16:17 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
> >
> >> Could
> >> someone please post a list of taboo subjects so that I don't ask the
> >> wrong question in the future?
> >>
> >
> > Anything that you could easily get an answer to by searching the list
> > archives.
> >
> > Lee
> >
> I am not going to search the archives before asking a question.
>
OK, suit yourself.
Anyway, there was no need to get so defensive - Arjan was just telling
you that it's not up to the kernel developers when reiser4 gets in, it's
up the the reiser4 developers when they submit it in a mergeable state
(they know what that is), so you should ask the reiser4 people when they
plan to do that.
Lee
Lee Revell wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-01-14 at 19:23 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
>
>> Lee Revell wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 2006-01-14 at 16:17 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Could
>>>> someone please post a list of taboo subjects so that I don't ask the
>>>> wrong question in the future?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Anything that you could easily get an answer to by searching the list
>>> archives.
>>>
>>> Lee
>>>
>>>
>> I am not going to search the archives before asking a question.
>>
>>
>
> OK, suit yourself.
>
> Anyway, there was no need to get so defensive - Arjan was just telling
> you that it's not up to the kernel developers when reiser4 gets in, it's
> up the the reiser4 developers when they submit it in a mergeable state
> (they know what that is), so you should ask the reiser4 people when they
> plan to do that.
>
> Lee
>
>
I just asked a question. Obviously it's a question that seems to
politically hot to handle. I didn't realize reiser 4 was a prohibited
subject.
> > OK, suit yourself.
> >
> > Anyway, there was no need to get so defensive - Arjan was just telling
> > you that it's not up to the kernel developers when reiser4 gets in, it's
> > up the the reiser4 developers when they submit it in a mergeable state
> > (they know what that is), so you should ask the reiser4 people when they
> > plan to do that.
> >
> > Lee
> >
> >
> I just asked a question. Obviously it's a question that seems to
> politically hot to handle. I didn't realize reiser 4 was a prohibited
> subject.
please stop trolling.
I gave you a polite answer that the exact same question was asked
recently, and answered. If you are then too lazy to go look in the
archive even then..... ok here is it:
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0601.0/1840.html
I even pointed out a mailinglist that's best suited for detailed
follow-on questions.
Your "political" and other crap you're spewing here shows that you're
not actually interested in the answer, but just want to start a
flamewar. THAT is not reasonable on linux-kernel. If you want to start a
flamewar at least do it for a technical topic/reason.
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>>> OK, suit yourself.
>>>
>>> Anyway, there was no need to get so defensive - Arjan was just telling
>>> you that it's not up to the kernel developers when reiser4 gets in, it's
>>> up the the reiser4 developers when they submit it in a mergeable state
>>> (they know what that is), so you should ask the reiser4 people when they
>>> plan to do that.
>>>
>>> Lee
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I just asked a question. Obviously it's a question that seems to
>> politically hot to handle. I didn't realize reiser 4 was a prohibited
>> subject.
>>
>
> please stop trolling.
>
> I gave you a polite answer that the exact same question was asked
> recently, and answered. If you are then too lazy to go look in the
> archive even then..... ok here is it:
>
> http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0601.0/1840.html
>
> I even pointed out a mailinglist that's best suited for detailed
> follow-on questions.
>
> Your "political" and other crap you're spewing here shows that you're
> not actually interested in the answer, but just want to start a
> flamewar. THAT is not reasonable on linux-kernel. If you want to start a
> flamewar at least do it for a technical topic/reason.
>
>
I just asked a simple question about what the status of a merge was. No
one has responded to my question yet. All I'm hearing is that Reiser 4
is a prohibited subject.
> >> I just asked a question. Obviously it's a question that seems to
> >> politically hot to handle. I didn't realize reiser 4 was a prohibited
> >> subject.
> >>
> >
> > please stop trolling.
> >
> > I gave you a polite answer that the exact same question was asked
> > recently, and answered. If you are then too lazy to go look in the
> > archive even then..... ok here is it:
> >
> > http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0601.0/1840.html
> >
> > I even pointed out a mailinglist that's best suited for detailed
> > follow-on questions.
> >
> > Your "political" and other crap you're spewing here shows that you're
> > not actually interested in the answer, but just want to start a
> > flamewar. THAT is not reasonable on linux-kernel. If you want to start a
> > flamewar at least do it for a technical topic/reason.
> >
> >
> I just asked a simple question about what the status of a merge was. No
> one has responded to my question yet. All I'm hearing is that Reiser 4
> is a prohibited subject.
Thank you for proving my point about you being a troll.
On Sat 14-01-06 19:23:46, Marc Perkel wrote:
>
>
> Lee Revell wrote:
> >On Sat, 2006-01-14 at 16:17 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
> >
> >>Could
> >>someone please post a list of taboo subjects so that I
> >>don't ask the wrong question in the future?
> >>
> >
> >Anything that you could easily get an answer to by
> >searching the list
> >archives.
> I am not going to search the archives before asking a
> question.
Then any subject is taboo for you on this list.
--
Thanks, Sharp!
On Sad, 2006-01-14 at 20:34 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
> >> I am not going to search the archives before asking a question.
> >
> I just asked a question. Obviously it's a question that seems to
> politically hot to handle. I didn't realize reiser 4 was a prohibited
> subject.
Its not. Possibly your behaviour should come under "prohibited attitude"
but we don't have thought crime on the list beyond that your government
may be seeking to impose.
Its an "oh god not again" subject that has been beaten to death
repeatedly, and that is why people asked you to look at the archive
instead of wasting everyones time.
If you are really keen to get resierfs4 into the base kernel why not
email the reiserfs4 people and ask to help clean up the code and test
it ?
Alan
Alan Cox wrote:
> On Sad, 2006-01-14 at 20:34 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
>
>>>> I am not going to search the archives before asking a question.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I just asked a question. Obviously it's a question that seems to
>> politically hot to handle. I didn't realize reiser 4 was a prohibited
>> subject.
>>
>
> Its not. Possibly your behaviour should come under "prohibited attitude"
> but we don't have thought crime on the list beyond that your government
> may be seeking to impose.
>
> Its an "oh god not again" subject that has been beaten to death
> repeatedly, and that is why people asked you to look at the archive
> instead of wasting everyones time.
>
> If you are really keen to get resierfs4 into the base kernel why not
> email the reiserfs4 people and ask to help clean up the code and test
> it ?
>
> Alan
>
Look - all I did was ask a simple question about what was the status of
Reiser 4 and everyone is freaking out that I asked the question. You
guys are acting like you are members of a cult or something. I'm not
advocating anything. I just asked a question.
On Sun, 2006-01-15 at 10:11 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
>
> Alan Cox wrote:
> > On Sad, 2006-01-14 at 20:34 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
> >
> >>>> I am not going to search the archives before asking a question.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> I just asked a question. Obviously it's a question that seems to
> >> politically hot to handle. I didn't realize reiser 4 was a prohibited
> >> subject.
> >>
> >
> > Its not. Possibly your behaviour should come under "prohibited attitude"
> > but we don't have thought crime on the list beyond that your government
> > may be seeking to impose.
> >
> > Its an "oh god not again" subject that has been beaten to death
> > repeatedly, and that is why people asked you to look at the archive
> > instead of wasting everyones time.
> >
> > If you are really keen to get resierfs4 into the base kernel why not
> > email the reiserfs4 people and ask to help clean up the code and test
> > it ?
> >
> > Alan
> >
> Look - all I did was ask a simple question about what was the status of
> Reiser 4 and everyone is freaking out that I asked the question. You
> guys are acting like you are members of a cult or something. I'm not
> advocating anything. I just asked a question.
>
No one freaked out, we just said "we have no idea, ask the reiser4
developers".
Lee
On Sul, 2006-01-15 at 10:11 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
> Look - all I did was ask a simple question about what was the status of
> Reiser 4
And you were politely asked to read the archive and said you wouldn't.
What else did you expect.
Alan
[CCs trimmed]
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 07:11:40AM -0800, Marc Perkel took 0 lines to write:
>
>
> Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >
> >http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0601.0/1840.html
> >
> >I even pointed out a mailinglist that's best suited for detailed
> >follow-on questions.
> >
> >
> I just asked a simple question about what the status of a merge was. No
> one has responded to my question yet. All I'm hearing is that Reiser 4
> is a prohibited subject.
Balderdash. You're just not "hearing" what you want to hear.
You were pointed to an answer. If all you're hearing is that Resier 4
is a prohibited subject then you're evidently incapable of following a
link or perhaps of reading. On the off chance that it is the former,
I'll quote the relevant text from the message to which Arjan pointed
you:
"I think r4 folks are still working on Christoph's suggestions
that include changes required for the code to be merged."
Perhaps it is that you only want to "hear" a specific answer. You've
already written that you won't search the archives before you ask a
question.
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
--
"Last week a cop stopped me in my car. He asked me if I had a police
record. I said, no, but I have the new DEVO album. Cops have no sense
of humor."
Kurt Wall wrote:
>
> "I think r4 folks are still working on Christoph's suggestions
> that include changes required for the code to be merged."
>
>
That is the answer I was looking for. Thanks.
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 07:59:27AM -0800, Marc Perkel took 0 lines to write:
>
>
> Kurt Wall wrote:
> >
> > "I think r4 folks are still working on Christoph's suggestions
> > that include changes required for the code to be merged."
> >
> >
> That is the answer I was looking for. Thanks.
s/looking for/demanding to be spoon-fed/
Shame on me for doing so.
Kurt
--
It's a damn poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word.
-- Andrew Jackson
Lee Revell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Arjan was just telling
> you that it's not up to the kernel developers when reiser4 gets in
>
Well it is a bit. Current status is that we just don't have anyone who's
sufficiently familar with VFS internals and idioms who has the
time+inclination to sit down and work with the reiserfs developers to get
the thing into a generally-acceptable state. Progress has been made over
the past 12-28 months, but there's more to do. It's a huge piece of code
and a lot of work to do this.
I said I'd do this a couple of months ago but of course haven't had time to
scratch myself.
The second hurdle will be Linus's somewhat-hard-to-define rule of thumb for
such merges: we'll only add such a large burden to the tree if there's
vendor pull for it. Last time I asked around the vendors the response was
fairly tepid, although that was a year ago.
So reiser4 is somewhat in a state of limbo at present. We need to
generally up the tempo and firm up some plans rather than letting things
drift like this, but I don't see a way in which we can do that.
Hi Andrew,
On 1/20/06, Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well it is a bit. Current status is that we just don't have anyone who's
> sufficiently familar with VFS internals and idioms who has the
> time+inclination to sit down and work with the reiserfs developers to get
> the thing into a generally-acceptable state. Progress has been made over
> the past 12-28 months, but there's more to do. It's a huge piece of code
> and a lot of work to do this.
Has there been discussion on what's acceptable state? More
specifically, is fs/reiser4/page_cache.c and fs/reiser4/lock.c bits
going to be merged or are they expected to be merged with generic
code? What about the plugin bits?
Pekka
>> Arjan was just telling
>> you that it's not up to the kernel developers when reiser4 gets in
>
>Well it is a bit. Current status is that we just don't have anyone who's
>sufficiently familar with VFS internals and idioms who has the
>time+inclination to sit down and work with the reiserfs developers to get
>the thing into a generally-acceptable state. Progress has been made over
>the past 12-28 months, but there's more to do. It's a huge piece of code
>and a lot of work to do this.
>[...]
>So reiser4 is somewhat in a state of limbo at present. We need to
>generally up the tempo and firm up some plans rather than letting things
>drift like this, but I don't see a way in which we can do that.
Yep, http://kerneltrap.org/node/5654 suggests [to me] that the repacker be
finished first before it's of good use
"Hans Reiser: Our fsync performance is not optimized yet, and will be bad
until it is optimized. Our performance for fully random modifications
will be bad until we ship a repacker." (kerneltrap article from September
13 2005)
Jan Engelhardt
--