From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.105.134.102] (helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DjdWm-0006Df-5h for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 18 Jun 2005 13:38:28 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j5IDb5A7007774; Sat, 18 Jun 2005 13:37:05 GMT Received: from smtp101.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com (smtp101.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com [206.190.36.79]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j5IDYH4v021859 for ; Sat, 18 Jun 2005 13:34:18 GMT Received: (qmail 84650 invoked from network); 18 Jun 2005 13:34:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.101?) (omkhar@rogers.com@70.28.195.108 with plain) by smtp101.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 Jun 2005 13:34:36 -0000 Message-ID: <42B422E6.2090602@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 09:34:30 -0400 From: Omkhar Arasaratnam Organization: ppc64.gentoo.org User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] linux-2.6.12 References: <42B3A17D.6090306@leetworks.com> <200506180050.13233.vapier@gentoo.org> <42B3A8A7.9060508@leetworks.com> <20050617230517.0e976362@enterprise.weeve.org> <42B3B94E.70204@gentoo.org> <42B3B965.1030804@leetworks.com> <42B3BEAE.40608@gentoo.org> <42B3F713.1000108@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <42B3F713.1000108@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.92.0.0 OpenPGP: id=38769475 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: c0ae07fe-8d59-4f55-bea5-213251410e7e X-Archives-Hash: a76f6ee98c3839420a68de7cb7c4d6d1 Luca Barbato wrote: >Kumba wrote: > > > >>I'm just stating this, because once reiserfs4 goes mainline (I believe >>it's in -mm currently), we are bound to have users hitting various bumps >>and ruts in the road using it, and if they file bugs to our bugzilla >>that aren't related to patches we produce, then they'll likely wind up >>closed as invalid and such. This saves the users time, and may get them >>the answers they seek (or at least a resolution of some kind). It also >>saves our bug-wranglers time by now having to deal with more invalid bugs. >> >> >> > >We can always patch the problem in the g-s ^^ > >Given reiserfs4 is around for enough time and lots of brave users tested >it, it MAY be not so unstable. (still I like jfs and xfs more, and I use >them just for transient data (large video and image processing tests and >so on)) > > > As a ppc64 arch and can officially state that reiser4fs is very unstable under ppc64 as of the last time I checked, which was some where in the 2.6.12rc cycle plus mm patch. That said, we're not RedHat. We ship as MANY features as we can and let the user decide. I agree that it is valuable to get reiser4 testing done up front. Eventually - some people will use it. Last I checked "I think $FOO is stupid" wasn't a valid closure code in bugzilla ;-) -- Omkhar Arasaratnam - Gentoo PPC64 Developer omkhar@gentoo.org - http://dev.gentoo.org/~omkhar Gentoo Linux / PPC64 Linux: http://ppc64.gentoo.org -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list