Hello Kris, Kris Warkentin: > I was wondering why aufs is not part of the main kernel tree. There was > an interview with Linus and it sounds like they don't really mind adding > filesystems to the main tree since it's easy to do and there is limited > risk.
Thank you for telling me, I will read the interview later. Actually I have posted aufs to the linux kernel mailing list and asked the review and inclusion. But the responce was no good. I don't why but I can guess. - the posted files were too large - too ugly to review - too buggy to include etc... See also #0: http://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=120716468102834&w=2 (and its thread) #1: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121094783627420&w=2 and http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121095167703556&w=2 (67 patches) #2: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121134021604833&w=2 (39 patches) That is also why I started aufs2. I hope someday I can post aufs2 to LKML and they will include it. In order to this, I need to brush up aufs2 and asked you to test it. Of course my local tests are all passed, but in real world, eg. real users, the usage is far beyond my knowledge and they can find unknown bugs. > Certainly this would solve the issues of what to do with the repository > and it sounds like it's a lot easier to get wider adoption that way too. Agreed. J. R. Okajima ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword
