On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 8:02 AM, Steve Long <slong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thursday 21 August 2008 11:47:03 Miguel Sousa Filipe wrote: >> > Testing, discussing and reporting bugs are a great first step. >> >> One thing that I would like to see, is how btrfs behaves with eavy >> uses of version control systems like: >> - git >> - hg >> >> big repos, greps, finds, and stuff like that. >> > How about kernel compiles (cf contest)? Perhaps with pull of the tree from > cold cache or indeed several trees. I believe Chris allready cover that workload in his tests.. but can't hurt. :D > > <snip good stuff> >> - DeviceKit.Disks support (the future is DeviceKit! :-p) -> > > Oh God does it have to be? Up to users what they install, but is it really the > job of the fs to worry about a user layer on top of a lib on top of some > other lib, one of which hasn't even got to 1.0 release, and whose author is > apparently fine with changing everything around on distros (after all it > hasn't got to 1.0..) but still insistent on how everyone else should be doing > things? Not that it's anything to do with the FS, so why should we worry > about it? > >> -> http://hal.freedesktop.org/docs/DeviceKit/ > > I couldn't find anything about "Disks", which may be down to my ignorance. > >> -> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/hal/2008-May/011560.html >> -> > *groan* "the way forward is the model where you have a policy-less privileged > mechanism that can be controlled by an unprivileged GUI policy agent" > Some of us quite like existing Unix permissions, especially on our 2 or 3 user > desktops, and that kind of thing has been done, eg in mandriva, for quite a > while now. Great if that's what people are happy with (personally I think > scrapping dcop was a *huge* mistake) but I don't want it on my system any > more than I _have_ to, to get apps to work (which is why I love Gentoo.) even if I like the gentoo or openbsd way, that doesn't help having good btrfs support on all the other distros that use HAL or its descendants. > >> http://gitweb.freedesktop.org/?p=DeviceKit/DeviceKit.git;a=summary - grub >> support for btrfs (read only..) :D > > Great, I see that's moving quickly, no code updates in 4 months. I'm guessing > that's not because it's a stable and mature project that doesn't need any > more work on it.. > Tell me again what this has to do with a FS in the kernel; are btrfs supposed > to change their code in any way to work with DeviceKit? > > I agree with all the other stuff you posted, so please don't take my antipathy > toward HAL and *Kit as criticism of you. I share much of your opinions about hal and these new (leaky) abstraction layers, but having a current/decent linux install without all that hal stuff (with gnome or kde) is next to impossible. My concearn is more of btrfs having equal support on those dandy apps/layers, that will be used by fedora, ubuntu, opensuse, etc... I want in a years time, have a "format with BTRFS" option on a regular fedora/ubuntu install. > > Regards, > steveL. > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- Miguel Sousa Filipe -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
