|From:||Jeff Putney <jeffrey.putney-AT-gmail.com>|
|To:||Josef Bacik <josef-AT-redhat.com>|
|Subject:||Re: Honest timeline for btrfsck|
|Date:||Fri, 7 Oct 2011 10:58:55 -0500|
|Cc:||Chris Mason <chris.mason-AT-oracle.com>, linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs-AT-vger.kernel.org>|
The rescue tool may have a lot of the logic I personally am most interested in reading. Thank you for that! > The problem is people won't just read it, they will use it. I've read every last line of the current btrfsck, even though it doesn't do anything. I am interested in the source specifically to read it. > I wrote a > basic repair tool for a user in Fedora who seemed to have a very > specific kind of corruption, and earlier this week almost a month after > my initial repair tool I had to write another tool to go in and just > pull all his data off his disk because a bug in my repair tool made his > fs _WORSE_, to the point I'm not sure I can fix it. These are specifically the types of one off solutions that are having to be done because the source hasn't been released for the community to finish up. > Fsck has the > potential to make any users problems worse, and given the increasing > number of people putting production systems on btrfs with no backups the > idea of releasing a unpolished and not fully tested fsck into the world > is terrifying, and would likely cause long term "I heard that file > system's fsck tool eats babies" sort of reputation. I fail to see the distinction between releasing an unpolished fsck vs releasing an unpolished fs driver. They are collaborating parts of the same system. Whether they say btrfsck eats babies or btrfs eats babies, they are still saying that the babies are getting eaten. > Release early and release often is nice for web browsers and desktop > environments, it's not so nice with things that could result in data > loss, especially when our user base is growing in leaps and bounds and > aren't necessarily informed enough on the dangers of using an file > system that's still under heavy development. What you are saying is that the specter of increased data loss somehow outweighs the combined benefit that the community has to offer. Unless the current state of the project IS due solely to the work of Chris and Josef, and you don't feel that the community at large has provided meaningful contributions, than I think that's a pretty skeptical and unappreciative attitude towards all of the people who HAVE contributed to this project. The 'specialness' of an fsck tool is highly suspect. Current development versions of all the other fsck tools are available in their respective repositories, and yet headlines of their eating babies are still pretty scarce. I'm glad that Linus didn't use your logic when it came to releasing the linux kernel. Do you think the entire linux kernel is more like a web browser, or a desktop environment? This smells more like post hoc justification of being territorial over a pet project than it does actual reasons for keeping the source a state secret of oracle. Unless their is no intention of releasing the source, and Oracle intends to keep it a closed source product for their own linux distributions alone. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to email@example.com More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Copyright © 2011, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds