On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 11:48:26AM -0400, James Lawrence wrote: > And since other FS maintainers are not stepping up to the plate and > improving or implementing new filesystems to address their own > featureset and branding short comings, I'm not terribly interested in > what they have tso say on the matter. And neither should you linus, > let them be upset that *experimental* *opt in* systems can > (and should) operate under different development processes. I > certainly give my engineers/researchers a ton of leeway long as their > work is opt in. That one is unfair: btrfs has improved greatly, by most reports (but I also still see reports of e.g. multi device issues). I think bcachefs has been a bit of a kick in the pants for them, they've taken some stuff directly from bcachefs - e.g. I believe they took the basic design of raid5 v2, the stripes tree, directly from bcachefs. A btrfs engineer asked me and I explained the design at a conference some years back, and I've seen other solutions show up in btrfs that look cribbed from btrfs. Similarly, the basic user interface of subvolumes and snapshots in bcachefs is lifted directly from btrfs - it looked sane, so I stole it. That's where we're at our best, spurring each other on in friendly competition, stealing each other's good ideas...
