> "David S. Miller" wrote:
> > One would think that with a year or so of internal work this sort of
> > stuff would have been cleaned up already. If you guys had released
> > this a year ago things would be much further along than it is right
> > now, I think that keeping it internal for so long was the biggest
> > mistake SGI made about XFS on Linux. Even if it didn't build nor
> > work, releasing 'a source tree' a year ago would have had the whole
> > world contributing to fix it all up and we'd have a working and clean
> > XFS in the tree already.
> > But that's SGI politics for you.
> No, it isn't.
> In fairness to all of us, inside and outside SGI, one must come to
> terms with the fact that we could not publish XFS code before the
> encumbrance review and cleanup were complete. All of us on the XFS
> team at SGI would have liked nothing better than to publish XFS as
> soon as we made the announcement last year.
The green light from legal literally wasn't given till late Tuesday.
I was up till 3 am finalizing the cvs transfer procedure.
The source code release was something we all wanted.
Have to start bracing for all the patches. :-)
> Dan Koren Dan.Koren@xxxxxxx
> Silicon Graphics, Inc. phone: (USA) 650-933-3678
> 1200 Crittenden Lane M/S 30-3-802 fax: (USA) 650-933-3542
> Mountain View, CA 94040 dkoren_p@xxxxxxxxxxxxx