Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 18 Aug 2012 12:10:08 -0700 (PDT) | From | Dan Magenheimer <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH 0/3] staging: zcache+ramster: move to new code base and re-merge |
| |
[Seth re new redesigned codebase]
> From: Seth Jennings [mailto:sjenning@linux.vnet.ibm.com] > Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 4:33 PM > > So I can't support this patchset, citing the performance > degradation and the fact that this submission is > unreviewable due to it being one huge monolithic patchset on > top of an existing codebase.
[Dan re old demo codebase]
> From: Dan Magenheimer > Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 11:48 AM > Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/4] promote zcache from staging > > Sorry, but FWIW my vote is still a NACK. IMHO zcache needs major > work before it should be promoted, and I think we should be spending > the time fixing the known flaws rather than arguing about promoting > "demo" code.
:-#
"Well, pahdner," drawls the Colorado cowboy (Dan) to the Texas cowboy (Seth), "I reckon we gots us a good old fashioned standoff."
"What say we settle this like men, say six-shooters at twenty paces?"
:-)
Seriously, maybe we should consider a fork? Zcache and zcache2?
(I am REALLY away from email for a few days starting NOW.)
Dan
| |