Alan Cox [off-list ref] wrote:

On Iau, 2005-09-01 at 03:59 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:

quoted

- Why the kernel needs two clustered fileystems

So delete reiserfs4, FAT, VFAT, ext2, and all the other "junk". 

Well, we did delete intermezzo.

I was looking for technical reasons, please.

quoted

- Why GFS is better than OCFS2, or has functionality which OCFS2 cannot
  possibly gain (or vice versa)

- Relative merits of the two offerings

You missed the important one - people actively use it and have been for
some years. Same reason with have NTFS, HPFS, and all the others. On
that alone it makes sense to include.

Again, that's not a technical reason.  It's _a_ reason, sure.  But what are
the technical reasons for merging gfs[2], ocfs2, both or neither?

If one can be grown to encompass the capabilities of the other then we're
left with a bunch of legacy code and wasted effort.

I'm not saying it's wrong.  But I'd like to hear the proponents explain why
it's right, please.