'Why Reiser4 is not merged' is a widespread question around forums, Slashdot, OSNews, and wherever else Linux-related new appears on the web. The flame-wars on this topic have gotten to the 'mine is bigger than yours' level. Hence, it's not easy to see where the real problem lies. This document tries to make clear the 'official' point of view of Linux developers on this matter.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
The past is not now. the kernel devs being more stringent on what code to include is a good thing.
But at the same time, look how long it took to finally get ReiserFS v3 merged in; and guess what? the only thing the developers were worried about was so-called 'file corruption' and when it was hunted down, the only people who were affected were those running buggy chipsets, for everyone else, they received a boost in performance without any stability or dataloss issues.
ReiserFS v4 is a big step forward, but if there are issues, and the group told to go back to the lab and test more; they need to write out a white paper rationalising the decision they've made, the reasons, and the parts of the said component that needs correcting. No use giving open ended statements like, "needs more work with the VFS team' without actually laying out what needs to be done.
Member since:
2005-08-18
Yes, that's why reiserfs 3 is in the kernel...because they hate Hans Reiser. It's so obvious!
"Hans is partly responsible for that, but the kernel has been significantly more liberal with other code getting inclusion in the past compared to Reiser4 and anyone who's followed the kernel mailing list will admit this to you."
The past is not now. the kernel devs being more stringent on what code to include is a good thing.
"Needles to say, he hasn't taken that lying down and the battle forges on."
Yes, clearly this is ALL the kernel devs fault.
"Resier4 is a telling example of how even though all of the code is open sourse"
If it sucks it doesn't matter if it's OSS or not.