Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 20:51:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 20:51:24 -0500 Received: from 1-064.ctame701-1.telepar.net.br ([200.181.137.64]:18882 "EHLO 1-064.ctame701-1.telepar.net.br") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 20:51:23 -0500 Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 23:57:45 -0200 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel X-X-Sender: riel@imladris.surriel.com To: Eff Norwood cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kevin Corry , , Subject: RE: [Evms-devel] EVMS announcement In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-spambait: aardvark@kernelnewbies.org X-spammeplease: aardvark@nl.linux.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1131 Lines: 32 On Tue, 5 Nov 2002, Eff Norwood wrote: > So, having EVMS not included in the kernel was the decision they wanted > to make? Not having the kernel part of EVMS doesn't mean EVMS isn't available to users. EVMS can get a lot of the functionality using device mapper. > If not, then I propose you be a little more reasonable and think about > what this decision does to all the work thus far put into EVMS. The work put into EVMS this far is maybe 20% of the work that maintaining EVMS would cost once it's in the kernel. Developing code is nowhere near as much work as maintaining it indefinately. Using the device mapper framework makes a lot of sense from many points of view. regards, Rik -- Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH". http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ Current spamtrap: october@surriel.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/