9 years old, with 70 releases, and still not good enough for a 1.0 release, huh? Guess I'll wait until they think it is ready for production.....
And secondly version numbers are often a meaningless gauge of when something is production ready. In any production environment you'd need to thoroughly test any new technology (or even point releases of existing tech) before deploying to prod because regression bugs and undocumented behaviour is a real thing.
As an aside, I've been running ZFS since shortly after it's release and have ran it across 4 distinct operating systems in that time. It's honestly been one of the best pieces of engineering I've used in that time. To the extent that ZFS has saved me from total data loss (ignoring, for the moment, backups) on at least two separate occasions.
I use ZFS.
I am mocking open source developers' terror of calling something a 1.0 release.
At the same time they say release numbers aren't an indication of quality their actions tell us that release numbers matter a lot and that's why they are scared of calling something a 1.0 release.
Given that ZoL doesn't support reflink (ficlone/ficlonerange; see also https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/issues/405), and that ZFS is a CoW filesystem, that's pretty good reason not to have 1.0 release.
In other words, there is no way no use a key feauture, without enabling deduplication (that's exactly that feature, that requires heaps of RAM).
That’s it.
This ”scared” and ”terror” talk is a bit unnecessary as the only one interested in numbers in a version no. is someone selling it.
Linus is mocking this very fact by arbitrarily raising the kernel version.
Wow time flies! Feels like only yesterday I was reading about the inception of that project.