ext2 inode size patch - RE: PR kern/124621

[Bruce M. Simpson]

Kostik Belousov wrote:
> ...
> Bruce, feel free to commit the patch.
>
> I do not want to spend time on ext2 in any form, and due to our (only
> partly jokingly) rule of the "last committer is the owner", I do not
> want to analyze ext2 bug reports after.
>   

    Yes, development resource is limited here too, and any involvement 
on my part here DOES NOT constitute any commitment, express or implied, 
to maintaining the ext2fs module beyond the change being considered 
right now.

    I find that this often has to be reiterated as people are prone to 
confusing the concepts "open source" and "free", basic economics 
dictates infinite demand for free goods, and we've all got lives to live.

    As per our off-list discussion: It's a damned if we do and damned if 
we don't situation. Take the patch and it eats someone's lunch, and our 
reptuation suffers. Don't take the patch and look like patriarchal 
killjoys, and our reputation siffers.

    Your specific objection is that the testing is insufficient to 
exercise the patch, and there could be an area of ext2 which this patch 
doesn't address. That can never be said with 100% certainty, but I agree 
with you.

Content free argument:
    Based on my reading of the code, the patch must be considered 
experimental. Whilst the scope of the patch appears to be small, the 
symbol space of ext2 is bigger -- a case of feeping creaturism due to 
ext2 itself, but hey, that's evolution for you.

    If folk are happy with it going in, let it go in, but remember, you 
get the system you apply effort to. I myself consider the patch 
experimental -- but HEAD is an experiment, is it not? Reality is what 
you can get away with.

cheers
BMS