Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 15:24:05 +0300
From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
       linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
       linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Btrfs mainline plans
Message-ID: <20081005122405.GA12047@cs181140183.pp.htv.fi>
References: <1222717460.30627.56.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> <20081003001859.e30af6a5.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20081003001859.e30af6a5.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2256
Lines: 55

On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 12:18:59AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:44:20 -0400 Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> > But, the code is very actively developed, and I believe the best way to
> > develop Btrfs from here is to get it into the mainline kernel (with a
> > large warning label about the disk format) and attract more extensive
> > review of both the disk format and underlying code.
> 
> For the record...  I have been encouraging Chris to get btrfs into
> mainline soon.  Get it into linux-next asap and merge it into 2.6.29.
> 
> And do this even though the on-disk format is still changing - we emit a
> loud printk at mount time and if someone comes to depend upon some
> intermediate format, well, that's their tough luck.
> 
> My thinking here is that btrfs probably has a future, and that an early
> merge will accelerate its development and will broaden its developer base. 
> If it ends up failing for some reason, well, we can just delete it
> again.
> 
> For various reasons this approach often isn't appropriate as a general
> policy thing, but I do think that Linux has needed a new local
> filesystem for some time, and btrfs might be The One, and hence is
> worth a bit of special-case treatment.

Let's try to learn from the past:

6 days from today ext4 (another new local filesystem for Linux) 
celebrates the second birthday of it's inclusion into Linus' tree
as a similar special-case.

You claim "an early merge will accelerate its development and will 
broaden its developer base" for Btrfs.

Read the timeline Ted outlined back in June 2006 for ext4 [1].
When comparing with what happened in reality it kinda disproves
your "acceleration" point.

cu
Adrian

[1] http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/6/28/454

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

--
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/