Subject: Re: bug#13582: [PATCH] stat: add ext4 to the ext2/ext3 list

From: Bernhard Voelker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 21:19:52 +0100

On 01/29/2013 07:39 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:> On Tuesday 29 January 2013 01:57:42 Bernhard Voelker wrote:
>> On 01/29/2013 07:13 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> Thanks for the patch, however, you submitted it to the bug-coreutils
>> mailing list which automatically opened a new ticket. Therefore, I'm
>> closing the bug (not intending to stop the discussion). Please use the
>> general discussion list [email-masked] next time.
> 
> that's not really what the top level README files indicate in the coreutils 
> repo

Hi Mike,

I feel very sorry if my words were a bit harsh.

Admitted, you refer to this in README:

  If your patch adds a new feature, please try to get some sort of consensus
  that it is a worthwhile change.  One way to do that is to send mail to
  [email-masked] including as much description and justification
  as you can.  Based on the feedback that generates, you may be able to
  convince us that it's worth adding.

Hmm, in my opinion and what I have experienced in the last 2+ year
on the coreutils and bug-coreutils mailing lists, real bugs (or if
the user thinks it is one) should be handled in bug-coreutils, while
general discussion issues and topics including patches which need some
consensus (or review) should go to the main coreutils mailing list.

But as Bob also stated off-list, your patch is some corner case:

  But it is a grey area needing a judgement call.  Certainly a
  submission that is simply, "what do you think about this" would
  be a discussion issue.

Sorry again.

Back to EXT*:
I think one problem is that an ext2 or ext3 file system can be mounted
as ext2, ext3, or ext4, while an ext4 file system can only be mounted
as ext4, not as ext2/ext3. Therefore, a detection of the real type would
probably be worthwhile. OTOH a running program may not need to care about
how this file system could be mounted otherwise.

Have a nice day,
Berny