One last (batch of) comment(s):
I am not advocating renaming the existing -mm implementation to
something else so it can rot there under a different name.
I can very well live with reiser4 not making it into mainline, I never
used reiser3 (only once for two, and after a power outage rendered the
fs unusable and fsck did fsck all, I chose reliability over
"performance") and am quite happy with ext3 for years and btrfs looks
promising, too.
I was merely thinking: If reiser4 really is all that great and some
people want it desperately in mainline, apart from fixing outstanding
issues or convincing Al etc there are none left, they might rename it to
reduce the controversy potential over its inclusion. I would think that
for people desperately wanting it in, the features of reiser4 are more
important than the name and the name is probably somewhat "difficult".
Renaming something for political reasons is certainly something you
shouldn't do aggressively, but I would favour it in this case:
- For mainline, it's no rename, as it is not in yet.
- I don't like having the author's name as the fs's name anyway.
- It might save some unnecessary bad press .
On the other hand, I guess the real victims probably don't care and so
it wouldn't bother me that much either.
Tim
--
