Re: [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3

On Sat, 10 Jun 2006, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> 
> One possible solution to the version-confusion that would avoid duplicating
> features would be to merge the fs/ext{2,3} to fs/ext, then make fs/ext
> register itself as a filesystem under "ext2", "ext3", and "ext4".

But the thing is, technical people don't actually care about the version 
confusion.

The real issue is that ext3 is a stable filesystem, and the ext4 stuff 
buys fundamentally and absolutely _nothing_ for the vast majority of uses. 
Except pain.

So the real reason for the split would be the _user_ split. There are 
people who want big filesystems, and there are people who don't care. 

It's that simple.

> I've heard quite some griping about the amount of duplicated code 
> between ext2 and ext3;

That's a total piece of bullshit. Nobody seriously gripes about the 
duplication, and the ones that do have absolutely no idea what that split 
bought us. Ignore them.

			Linus