what's being asked for is for the kernel maintaineers to accept responsibility for maintaining it forever (well, 10 years or so, effectively forever)
You mean like devfs was? If Reiser4 turns out to be a bad-mutation just like devfs was, it can be removed, especially if it's marked as experimental until it's more proven.
When it was time to remove devfs, users were given two different upgrade paths: return to a static /dev, or use sysfs/udev In part this was possible because the kernel developers had the technical knowledge, expertise and experience with the code and problem in order to provide a solution. This despite the disappearance of the originator of devfs.
If it came time to remove reiserfs4 from the kernel, could the current or future kernel developers provide the same service to users of reiserfs4? That appears to be the motivation to have the reiserfs code comply with kernel code guidelines.
Labeling new code as experiemental obviously helps, as that indicates DO NOT USE IN PRODUCTION, but there comes a point when that label goes away. Sometimes it's not even applied initially. That is what the kernel developers reviews are attempting to address, just like most other projects have to.
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds