On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 05:45:48PM +0100, Julian Foad wrote: > *** > Who has reviewed this or intends to do so? And for what aspects -- overall > design, compatibility/upgrade issues, threading issues, style, ...? > *** I am not planning to review the FSFSv7 changes because the changes are too large and complex for me to digest in a reasonable amount of time. From my point of view they have accumulated to a giant code dump developed by a single developer (much like the original FSFS code, as Greg once told me in Berlin). They are the result of much of Stefan's time and effort, which is awesome, but which he also developed mostly alone, which is bad for collaboration if it happens over such a long period of time. I wish Ivan and Stefan had developed these changes together, in lock step, from the beginning. I hope we can learn from this in the future and adapt our way of working accordingly, somehow.
I hope to have made a small but valuable contribution towards FSFSv7's quality by making sure there is no 1980's atoi()-style code in it that never heard of integer overflows. But beyond that I see no way of catching up. I came to this conclusion after glancing over the files that Ivan pointed out earlier we should read. I'd rather invest my time elsewhere and hope the community will settle on something that is good enough. Given that this discussion is still on-going and obviously considered important, I still have hope that this will be the case. And I hope I won't be left alone when having to fix FSFSv7 corruption should it ever occur in the wild ;-)
