Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932097AbZABW0t (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jan 2009 17:26:49 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756919AbZABW0i (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jan 2009 17:26:38 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com ([171.71.176.71]:15026 "EHLO sj-iport-2.cisco.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754860AbZABW0g (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jan 2009 17:26:36 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.36,319,1228089600"; d="scan'208";a="119463507" From: Roland Dreier To: Chris Mason Cc: Andi Kleen , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel , linux-btrfs Subject: Re: Btrfs for mainline References: <1230722935.4680.5.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> <20081231104533.abfb1cf9.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1230765549.7538.8.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> <87r63ljzox.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <1230924749.7538.35.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> <20090102210104.GC496@one.firstfloor.org> <1230932112.7538.82.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> X-Message-Flag: Warning: May contain useful information Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 14:26:34 -0800 In-Reply-To: <1230932112.7538.82.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> (Chris Mason's message of "Fri, 02 Jan 2009 16:35:12 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jan 2009 22:26:34.0597 (UTC) FILETIME=[2B662150:01C96D29] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=rdreier@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1044 Lines: 22 > > > I don't disagree, please do keep in mind that I'm not suggesting anyone > > > use this in production yet. > > When it's in mainline I suspect people will start using it for that. > I think the larger question here is where we want development to happen. > I'm definitely not pretending that btrfs is perfect, but I strongly > believe that it will be a better filesystem if the development moves to > mainline where it will attract more eyeballs and more testers. One possibility would be to mimic ext4 and register the fs as "btrfsdev" until it's considered stable enough for production. I agree with the consensus that we want to use the upstream kernel as a nexus for coordinating btrfs development, so I don't think it's worth waiting a release or two to merge something. - R. -- 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/