[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: ext3 0.9.12 for 2.4.10-ac11


As a user of ext3 who is shocked by the recent mail your team has gotten, I
just wanted to say thank you to your team for your diligent work.  The world of
Linux is a better place as a result of your work and I dare say, is critical to
making Linux an enterprise solution.  As such, your conservative approach to
keeping ext3 solid and stable when released with your blessing for each kernel
release is the only sensible thing.

A heart-felt thanks from all of us 'quiet but grateful' ext3 users.


"Stephen C. Tweedie" wrote:

> Hi,
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2001 at 02:35:50PM +0200, Tim Tassonis wrote:
> > > Personally, I believe that panicing kernels cause more hassle for
> > > users!
> >
> > You are certainly right, but that wasn't the point. The point is your
> > concentration on the -ac tree, which is not the official tree.
> What?  *What* concentration on the -ac tree?  We maintain both.  For a
> long time the primary ext3 patches were on the linus-tree, not the -ac
> one.  The support of the -ac tree is a recent addon, it's not where we
> concentrate.
> However, right now the linus tree is unsettled, and ext3 on the linus
> tree is *known* to have been broken by this, and we're still testing
> the fixes.  Ext3 on -ac is still thought to be rock solid right now.
> So until we've done more testing on the linus tree, the main supported
> ext3 patches will be on -ac, not on linus's tree.
> That's a recent change, and it's short term situation while linus's
> tree is in flux.
> Your claim that we concentrate on the -ac tree is false, and your
> assertion that it's somehow due to both Alan and myself working for
> the same company is bizarre.
> > If course
> > it is your decision which kernel to follow primarily, you wrote the code
> > and I am only a non-contributing user of your stuff. I run 2.4.10 with
> > ext3 since it came out and did not have one panic.
> You have been lucky --- fine.  I'm a little more cautious, and I don't
> like releasing supported patches to end-users when I know for certain
> that they contain regressions.  The e2fsprogs tools are totally broken
> on 2.4.10, for a start.
> > > > I guess it's a some kind of political thing (Red
> > > > Hat using -ac kernels and ext3 development payed by Red Hat?).
> > >
> > > That's just insulting speculation.  We have kept the -ac and Linus-
> > > versions of ext3 both uptodate until now, and in fact until fairly
> > > recently the linus-tree was the primary focus of development.
> >
> > Maybe, insulting, but rather obvious, don't you think?
> Huh?  It's plain false.  We tracked the linus tree primarily while it
> was the most stable tree, and only recently switched to -ac for
> stability's sake when the linus version started getting serious
> internal rewriting.  I don't know how you can read anything political
> into this.
> > Well, I don't get any. I guess I wouldn't get any with Alan's tree, since
> > I don't run VM benchmarks very often, just normal work.
> Simply running tune2fs on a mounted filesystem will be enough to
> encounter one of the 2.4.10 breakages.  Converting a mounted ext2
> filesystem to ext3 is impossible on 2.4.10, and setting other fs
> parameters with tune2fs will silently fail too.
> Cheers,
>  Stephen
> _______________________________________________
> Ext3-users mailing list
> Ext3-users redhat com
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ext3-users

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]