Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932282AbVISA47 (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Sep 2005 20:56:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932283AbVISA47 (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Sep 2005 20:56:59 -0400 Received: from qproxy.gmail.com ([72.14.204.201]:5616 "EHLO qproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932282AbVISA46 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Sep 2005 20:56:58 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=reXtmlkuilxcUsERQSRWi+cOOYr3BSH77mLI6qpCyCYVwxmdHkvB6FUf5k2u/Xys/gIAKEU/AoVx4MAuDlcGQ2WEFp3R3axv2ndLBJICVcPEwWezFCspe8hsIfFMa64nELWXpT9Q++7fCLzrIP3gA4OCD3lY8pv9h3JuwafS/vg= Message-ID: Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 20:56:57 -0400 From: michael chang Reply-To: thenewme91@gmail.com To: Kyle Moffett Subject: Re: I request inclusion of reiser4 in the mainline kernel Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Denis Vlasenko , chriswhite@gentoo.org, Hans Reiser , LKML , ReiserFS List In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Disposition: inline References: <432AFB44.9060707@namesys.com> <200509171415.50454.vda@ilport.com.ua> <200509180934.50789.chriswhite@gentoo.org> <200509181321.23211.vda@ilport.com.ua> <20050918102658.GB22210@infradead.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4406 Lines: 90 On 9/18/05, Kyle Moffett wrote: > On Sep 18, 2005, at 13:22:27, michael chang wrote: > > On 9/18/05, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > >> On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 01:21:23PM +0300, Denis Vlasenko wrote: > >> > >>> This is it. I do not say "accept reiser4 NOW", I am saying "give > >>> Hans good code review". > >> > >> that and there's much more exciting filesystems like ocfs2 around > >> that > > > > This is exciting to... whom? > > To the people that review the code. We're all volunteers here; if > your filesystem is so ugly and hard to read that the code reviewers > don't feel like finding time to slog through the mess, then it > probably means that you need to clean the code, document it better, > make it simpler to understand, fix the coding-style, etc. > > > The only thing that appears remotely interesting about it is that > > it's made by Oracle and apparently is supposed to be geared toward > > parallel server whatsits. This might be helpful to corporations, > > but seems senseless toward many consumers. (I'm assuming there's > > still at least one consumer left who still uses Linux.) > > Like I said above, we're all volunteers. Personally, I find OCFS2 > _much_ more interesting than reiser4, because it has a lot of cool > networked lock-managing algorithms that (given my current limited > understanding), work black magic. Given this, I'm a lot more likely > to spend time reading the OCFS2 code because its interesting than I > am reading reiser4 code, even though somebody eventually probably > needs to do said review. Hans' personal attacks on the people who > have criticized his code make such tasks even less personally > gratifying (IE: less interesting). I think some people are likely > hoping right now that if they put off the reiser4 code review long > enough, maybe the authors will take a hint and have it a bit cleaner > by the time they finally do get around to the review. > > > Give Hans a chance; and please try to understand, even if he's hard > > to work with. Discriminate him because he's not a developer you > > can talk with, and I believe that's like discriminating a guy in a > > wheelchair because he can't run with you when you jog in the morning. > > When you start getting into obscure discrimination analogies, the > discussion has become _way_ nontechnical. If this goes this goes any > further, somebody's probably going to compare a kernel developer to a > Nazi or Hitler, invoking Godwin's law and effectively killing the > thread. Please get this back onto a technical bent or drop it. > > > Not everyone has the same "common sense" that you do. Explain, > > fully, with reasoning, and reproducable back-up statistics on > > common hardware, what code is wrong, and what must be written > > instead. We'd like to be efficient, and it's not being efficient > > to play a guessing > > game with us. If you don't have the time to review, then please > > hold off on replying until you have a through review of at least > > part of the code. > > Christoph has noted a number of things in previous emails. I just > looked through the latest released code and several of them are still > valid. I would look through the latest code to see what is still > missing, but I can't get it on account of it being in bitkeeper, > which I don't have installed and don't intend to install. > > > I'm willing to go compare... [massive nontechnical rhetoric snipped] > > Unless you have technical arguments to contribute (and you indicate > that you do not), please to not spam the LKML with useless rhetoric- > filled emails that most of us will delete because we have too many > other things to do to bother reading or responding to. > Alright, I concede. Personally, I'm not much of a techie compared to you guys; I'm only in High School, and I have a mental disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger's_Syndrome), so I'll stop here, and hope that you guys can resolve this yourselves. Good luck to all, and hopefully there will be a peaceful resolution here. -- ~Mike - Just my two cents - No man is an island, and no man is unable. - 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/