xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Uhhuh.. 2.4.12

To: Linux XFS Mailing List <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Uhhuh.. 2.4.12
From: Federico Sevilla III <jijo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 17:14:45 +0800 (PHT)
In-reply-to: <4.3.2.7.2.20011011105807.02cd43d8@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 at 11:00, Seth Mos wrote:
> Maybe we can bribe Alan with a few DVD's or CD's ;-)

I know Alan's in RedHat's payroll (and RedHat is rather ext3-centric, it
seems, but this is just my opinion), but perhaps if we could get XFS on
his good side he'd manage to keep his tree XFS-enabled? That would be
really great (except I don't know what he thinks about all the internal
changes that XFS needs done). SGI can still keep a CVS tree of XFS, where
bug squashing can be handled. When a patch looks like it fixes things
decently, it can be fed to Alan.

But of course the decision of having an XFS-enabled tree is entirely up to
Alan, so ...

> Linus shines at releasing broken stuff it seems. How wonderful. :-/

At least Linus seems to know about it (self-awareness). Like he said,
"Alan is so much better at maintaining things".

In my humble opinion, it looks like Linus should start 2.5, and stay
there. He can feed Alan stuff he thinks should go into 2.4, and Alan
should handle the maintenance of the current stable tree (so we won't need
to put quotation marks all around it).

When 2.5 is done and it's out as 2.6, he should turn over control to Alan
and start 2.7 ... and so on. I think they'd make a really great tandem
with something like this.  And seemingly more productive than having
competing -linus and -ac trees of the same "stable" (?) kernel.

Just my 0.0004230691 Euro. (That's how much two Philippine centavos is
worth with the exchange rate...)

 --> Jijo

--
Federico Sevilla III  :: jijo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Network Administrator :: The Leather Collection, Inc.
GnuPG Key: <http://jijo.leathercollection.ph/jijo.gpg>


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>