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

[Shawn]

On 10/03, Michael Clark said something like:
> 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.

This statement is misleading; in no way is EVMS intended as an
interim solution to a problem addressed easier in other ways. It's
a fundamental change which happens to address certain critical issues
and also adds functionality whiz-bangs.

> > 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 ;)

Not quite...

> /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.

Me too.

--
Shawn Leas
[e-mail]

I had a friend who was a clown...  when he died, all his friends went to the
funeral in one car...
						-- Stephen Wright