From: Diego Calleja Subject: Re: [2.6.24 patch] let EXT4DEV_FS depend on BROKEN Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 19:26:29 +0100 Message-ID: <20080102192629.28e67241.diegocg@gmail.com> References: <20080102013218.GO27566@does.not.exist> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: sct@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, adilger@clusterfs.com, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Adrian Bunk Return-path: Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.159]:53774 "EHLO fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751163AbYABS1M convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Jan 2008 13:27:12 -0500 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id e21so3200068fga.17 for ; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 10:27:11 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20080102013218.GO27566@does.not.exist> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: El Wed, 2 Jan 2008 03:32:18 +0200, Adrian Bunk escrib= i=F3: > It might make sense to offer ext4 in -mm and even in early -rc kernel= s,=20 > but I've already seen people using ext4 simply because a stable kerne= l=20 > offered it - and that's definitely not intended. But isn't that the whole purpose of having ext4 snapshots in the stable= kernel - to allow people to try it?