From: Stephan Boettcher Subject: Re: [PATCH] resize2fs: handle exactly-16T filesystems in resize2fs Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 09:06:21 +0100 Message-ID: References: <4D09978E.5050302@redhat.com> <20101217001557.GE4455@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: ext4 development To: "Ted Ts'o" Return-path: Received: from l3ms.rz.uni-kiel.de ([134.245.11.96]:35746 "EHLO l3ms.rz.uni-kiel.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751193Ab0LQIGZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Dec 2010 03:06:25 -0500 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by l3ms.rz.uni-kiel.de with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PTVKc-0005K9-JD for linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 09:06:26 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20101217001557.GE4455@thunk.org> (Ted Ts'o's message of "Thu, 16 Dec 2010 19:15:57 -0500") Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: "Ted Ts'o" writes: > The 1.42 version is on the main "master" and "next" branch, where > "next" is where I'll check in things initially, and then "master" > catches up with "next". I took this from git, with the basic idea > being that if there are people who are testing next, and people who > are using the "master", hopefully problems get noticed and fixed > before people are using "master" grab a commit. To be honest there > probably aren't enough people tracking next and master for this to > make a huge amount of difference, but I'm following this scheme > anyway. So, I am doing the right thing, when I use the master branch for my 20TB filesystem? Or shall I try next, at least until I decide to actually use the filesystem for something real? -- Stephan