Re: [2.6] Most likely to be merged by Halloween... THE LIST

[Alan Cox]

On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 16:22, Daniel Phillips wrote:developed equivalent
> Supposing both device-mapper and (the kernel part of) EVMS get into the tree, 
> there's nothing stopping you from submitting a patch to make EVMS use 
> device-mapper.  If there's already equivalent code in EVMS, that just makes 
> the job easier.

So we end up with twice as much code to debug and lots of
incompatibilities when people want to switch around. It would be far
better if the two sets of userspace code could at least agree on a
common kernel interface

> I'm firmly in the 'we need both' camp.

If there is something important in only one then that matters. If there
are important features in each that are not in the other then that
really proves they should merge the projects