[OpenAFS] Re: [OpenAFS-devel] Thinking about 1.6

[Derrick Brashear]

On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu> wrote:
> --On Wednesday, December 16, 2009 06:04:58 PM +0000 Simon Wilkinson
> <sxw@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> *) Remove the --disable-afsdb switch, and associated #ifdefs, so AFSDB
>> comes as standard.
>
> As long as we don't remove the ability to turn it off at runtime. =A0I ju=
st
> had a conversation today with someone who needs to run a client with a
> restricted set of configured cells, and part of the solution is turning o=
ff
> afsdb support on that client.

I know of a client with that requirement, so, yeah.
>
>> *) Remove the --enable-bos-restricted switch, and associated #ifdefs and
>> make this behaviour the default - it's still controllable from the
>> command line, and the
>> default case is safe.
>
> I'm not convinced this should be the default.

why? no behavior change, code simplification...?

>
>> *) Remove --enable-disconnected switch, and default the code to on. This
>> code has had a fair amount of testing, and there are currently no
>> performance issues with having it enabled by default. However, there are
>> still usability issues with the implementation.
>
> If there are usability issues, why turn it on by default?

don't fs discon offline and you'll never know. the usability issue is
"if you reboot while disconnected any changes you've written will
appear to be lost"

>> *) Make demand attach the default, but provide --disable-demand-attach-f=
s
>> to allow old-style fileservers to still be built
>
> Uh... =A0I'm sure the people working on demand-attach would love this, bu=
t
> doing it requires making a decision that we won't release 1.6 until this
> feature is actually stable enough for _everyone_ to use on production
> servers, including people who don't know what they're getting themselves
> into. =A0I don't think we're there yet.

 that was the implicit intention.