2.4, XFS, and DM [LWN.net]

2.4, XFS, and DM

Posted Dec 11, 2003 18:29 UTC (Thu) by snitm (guest, #4031)
In reply to: 2.4, XFS, and DM by hch
Parent article: 2.4, XFS, and DM

As a 2.4 device mapper user I find Marcelo's adamant "I won't merge it" approach to be very short-cited; Kevin Corry was right on the money with his take on its inclusion; there is no _real_ reason this change shouldn't be merged other than Marcelo has his head in the sand. He isn't taking the time to appreciate how minimal/non-invasive the DM changes really are.

Oh but Marcelo will gladly merge in Cyclades drivers (granted they don't touch common code paths of the kernel); maybe IBM needs to hire Marcelo to do their (and the communities') bidding...

to post comments

2.4, XFS, and DM

Posted Dec 11, 2003 20:20 UTC (Thu) by Luyseyal (guest, #15693) [Link] (3 responses)

> Oh but Marcelo will gladly merge in Cyclades drivers

Yes, but that's a common, typical, non-invasive driver update to a stable kernel. That happens all the time.

1) Marcelo wants to be perceived as conservative, though able to be convinced now and then.

2) Marcelo probably has not allocated the time to verify how invasive the changes are. I mean, why have Hellwig review XFS if this is not the case?

Perhaps LVM2 people should have a 3rd party review their code as well...

-l

2.4, XFS, and DM

Posted Dec 11, 2003 23:16 UTC (Thu) by wolfrider (guest, #3105) [Link] (1 responses)

...And perhaps 2.4 needs a new maintainer.

2.4, XFS, and DM

Posted Dec 13, 2003 19:24 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (guest, #1954) [Link]

Or alternatively, maybe people who don't like what Marcello is producing should stop using it. Marcello doesn't have a monopoly on Linux kernel distribution; plenty of other people distribute similar Linux kernels to Marcelo's with somewhat different choices as to what to include, and if none of those are right, there's nothing to stop someone from starting yet another.

It seems to me that someone who objects to Marcelo's performance is really objecting to the fact that lots of other people find no fault with it. Those other people are what keep Marcello's work relevant.

2.4, XFS, and DM

Posted Dec 19, 2003 18:02 UTC (Fri) by huaz (guest, #10168) [Link]

> 2) Marcelo probably has not allocated the time to verify how
> invasive the changes are. I mean, why have Hellwig review XFS
> if this is not the case?

No time? Then quit!

The reason that Chris, not Marcelo, reviewed the change is, as well said by Marcelo himself, "I don't know VFS well" (or something to that extent).

Folks, Marcelo apparently is not as competent as Alan, Andrew or Linus, so he has to be conservative. The fact that he could be "won over" is the only plus.