I am all for an inclusion of Reiser4, since I like the vision and the
opportunities it offers _very_ much. Of course nobody can predict whether
it will be maintained for long enough, or whether its plugin-architecture
will ever be used. But this is irrelevant as far as I am concerned,
because it is "only" a YAFS (yet another file system). The difference is
that is tries to provides so much more than the other file systems. Of
course there will be penalties for the features it provides, maybe the
speed or processor usage will suffer.
But if the vision becomes reality, and instead of storing files in a DB, I
can just save them on an reiser4 partition, then one might be willing to
pay a little penalty.
So what if it does not work, or is never really used in innovative ways,
or not properly maintained? Just remove it from the kernel, an tell the
people to use a different YAFS....
The only reason to oppose its inclusion are long-lasting, painfull changes
to the kernel itself that reiser4 needs. As far as I understood, people
are trying to minimize those.
I wish them Good Luck
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds