| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <e9ge36$knp$1@sea.gmane.org> Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:32:32 +0100 From: Lexington Luthor <Lexington.Luthor@...il.com> To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: reiserFS? grundig wrote: > You (and every reiser4 fan that FUDs against linux developers just because > he can't understand why reiser4 still is not in) are seriously missing the > point. Easy there... I am not trying to get reiser4 merged, I am just trying to understand why it isn't already there. I am sure I have misunderstood something, otherwise there would not be such a great debate about this issue. I just would like to know more. > Just to point you how wrong you are, compare OCFS2 and GFS. Both of them > are clustering filesystems, being OCFS from Oracle and GFS from Redhat. > _Both_ filesystems have been asked to be included in the main tree. As for > today, only OCFS2 is in (since 2.6.16, after several reviews and after > fixing their code like everyone else). GFS still isn't in and seems to > need work, but you won't see to the GFS technical leader tell everybody > (like Hans has done here) that Linux politics don't allow GFS to go in. > Instead of wining, they just go back to work on their issues. Can you please point me to the current list of issues regarding reiser4 which are holding back its merging? Perhaps I can help with some of them. Thanks, LL - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists