Re: updated patch Re: buffer cache & ufs changes (preliminary ffsv2 extattr support)

[David Holland <dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 11:29:32PM +0000, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote:
 > > irregardless of what LFS is or isn't, breaking it on the branch is
 > > not acceptable.  you might not use it or trust it, but there are
 > > people who do -- the people who maintain it -- and the same argument
 > > applies equally to their work as to any other work.
 > 
 > The point being is that such for a long time defective piece of code like
 > LFS should not block other features and general progress, nor it should
 > be preserved under any cost (like it was done in notorious SA case, when
 > today the code is still broken, unmaintained and hardly has any real
 > users).  There is also another point - user experience, which perhaps
 > deserves a wider discussion, but not on tech-kern.

Yes, part of the user experience is that we don't randomly break
compatibility, particularly not on stable branches. And please define
"progress". If you want Red Hat, you know where to get it.

Btw, I'm eagerly awaiting your review of the vfs-level quota patches.

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost