| |||||||||||||
Whither btrfsck?Whither btrfsck?Posted Oct 13, 2011 9:09 UTC (Thu) by malor (subscriber, #2973)In reply to: Whither btrfsck? by dlang Parent article: Whither btrfsck? Well, but to be fair, they released it as a .0 version, which has a very specific meaning in the computer world (this is ready for you to use now!), and they did it explicitly to fool people into testing it... there are posts to that effect, that they knew putting a .0 on it would get more testers involved. Then they put not ready for production use down in the mass of announcement text. When people complained that the code was pretty crap, they shrugged and pointed at their escape clause. They broke the implied promise of end-user readiness, so I'd say the KDE team fully earned their loss of reputation. All they had to do was release it as 4.0 Alpha, and they'd have been mostly okay. Everyone knows code takes time to stabilize. Likewise, I think if btrfsk is released as 0.1 alpha, and it warns you that it sucks when you run it, then even if it does eat some babies, it won't be any big deal. And it MIGHT develop faster, although as corbet says, there may not yet be enough expertise in btrfs for anyone but Chris to be very useful working on it.
(Log in to post comments)
Whither btrfsck? Posted Oct 13, 2011 10:14 UTC (Thu) by sorpigal (subscriber, #36106) [Link] The primary benefit at this point of releasing the code seems to be "building trust" and not "speeding development." Maybe it gets debugged and improved faster, maybe not, but at least accusations of chicanery can be eliminated.
|
|||||||||||||