Re: [PATCH] Remove LVM from 2.5 (resend)

[Michael Clark]

On 10/03/02 20:38, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-10-03 at 06:50, Michael Clark wrote:
> 
>>>... and you don't need EVMS for that.
>>
>>But EVMS would be an excellent substitute in the mean time.
>>
>>Better to having something excellent now than something perfect but
>>too late.
> 
> 
> You can see who around here has maintained kernel code and who hasnt.
> You don't want a substitute in the mean time, because then you have to
> get rid of it

Like LVM ;)

/me submits to the masters and waits in subjugation.

Just hoping for good Volume Manager in 2.6 and EVMS looks good
to me from an end user perspective, and also seems quite timely.

~mc