[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1k54wal0j.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 09:30:20 -0700
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, tridge@...ba.org,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>,
Ogawa Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Michael Tokarev <mjt@....msk.ru>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add CONFIG_VFAT_NO_CREATE_WITH_LONGNAMES option
Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> That's for the maintainers to decide. If they agree it has worth, maybe
> it's a good idea to answer "How".
Al and Christoph said essentially the same thing and they generally
are considered the general area filesystem maintainers.
This kind of thing does not appear to have come up before and
so procedurally you guys are setting are attempting to set
a precedent.
All I know is that doing it the way you are doing seems like a bad
idea. Not discussing things or even the reason you can't discuss them
seems foolish and leaves no one satisfied.
Maybe there are good reasons but so far this whole thing just stinks.
When all of the pieces are public how can having secret veiled reasons
make sense?
And if secret magic consultations with lawyers are going to be invoked
I expect we should have a Signed-off-by from those lawyers.
Eric
--
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