>> how's this then: if changes are made to ext2fs (or ntfs, or any of the
>> "non-native" fs types), we (netbsd, that is) will have to play catch
>> up.  but if changes are made to ffs or lfs, that's changes that we (by
>> definition) already have, so there's no catch up period.
>
>Really?  So, if FreeBSD or BSDI adds some nifty feature to FFS that
>changes the on-disk format it magically appears in our source tree?

no...and i think you know what i mean.  :P

>Or, as another example, how 'bout that softdep code.
>
>Certainly we don't _have_ to catch up, but neither do we have to catch
>up with changes in FAT-family file systems or in ext2fs!

yes, i know.  we don't have to.  but isn't in our interest to do so?

>If you're going to use that metric, at this point probably the _only_
>file system that would qualify as 'native' is LFS...  Does anybody
>else have that up and going?

not that i know of.

-- 
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
codewarrior@daemon.org             * "ah!  i see you have the internet
twofsonet@graffiti.com (Andrew Brown)                that goes *ping*!"
andrew@crossbar.com       * "information is power -- share the wealth."