Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:38:12 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>, Cheen Liao <cheen@synology.com>, freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Transaction File System - a replacement of JFS Message-ID: <3E2F2B64.A3F382AB@mindspring.com> References: <20030114192634.75751.qmail@web13505.mail.yahoo.com> <20030117075118.GA3493@HAL9000.homeunix.com> <3E27DA7F.D5DBEFB@mindspring.com> <20030117222410.GA5449@HAL9000.homeunix.com> <001401c2be93$c36c7490$681adf3d@homexp> <xzpn0luwl6h.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <3E2DCE86.4C416E28@mindspring.com> <3E2F0ADB.ACBAA0D6@newsguy.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Daniel C. Sobral" wrote: > Since the suggestion was to go directly to 5.0, which will be MUCH > closer to the interfaces expected to remain stable on 5.x, the above > remarks are not particularly relevant, however true they might be. See other posting. The 5.x kernel API is still in great flux. At least with 4.x, there is a market for the product for a year or more, which gives some breathing room for a port. Given the developement effort involved, it's not worth having to always look over your shoulder to see if there's a 5.1. When 4.8 comes out, a 4.7->4.8 port will be trivial. When 5.1 comes out, a 5.0->5.1 port is going to be a living hell. Mark my words. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3E2F2B64.A3F382AB>