| To: | Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: XFS for 2.4 |
| From: | Austin Gonyou <austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 02 Dec 2003 12:05:26 -0600 |
| Cc: | Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>, Larry McVoy <lm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, XFS List <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312020919410.13692-100000@logos.cnet> |
| Organization: | Coremetrics, Inc. |
| References: | <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312020919410.13692-100000@logos.cnet> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 05:22, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > [...] > My whole point is "2.6 is almost out of the door and its so much > better". > Its much faster, much cleaner. I agree with this, even in spite of my earlier arguments. I do like 2.6, but I think there are some valid points listed recently for 2.4 inclusion. I might just be an end-user, but I do appreciate XFS for what it is, and have been using it for a while now. It just seems like natural inclusion at this point almost "just makes sense." -- Austin Gonyou <austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Coremetrics, Inc. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: XFS for 2.4, Larry McVoy |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: [linux-lvm] RE: [ADMIN] [PERFORM] backup/restore - another, Murthy Kambhampaty |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: XFS for 2.4, Jeremy Jackson |
| Next by Thread: | Re: XFS for 2.4, Stephan von Krawczynski |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |