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

[Steven Jenkins]

On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 2:29 AM, Alistair Ferguson
<Alistair.Ferguson@morganstanley.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>>>> =A0Since, as you note, there are sites which actually do rely on this,=
 are
>>>> you in fact meaning to say that the option would exist, but not be men=
tioned
>>>> in the usage? =A0I guess I'd also like to hear from Steven on pthreade=
d-ubik.
>>>> =A0It appears that it actually isn't 100% stable, but is close, and ap=
parently
>>>> it's issue(s) are difficult to provoke.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What we have in the code base definitely has bugs; Are there fixes
>>> which have not made it back upstream?
>>>
>>
>> Not significant fixes, no, but there are some minor ones.
>>
>> At the moment, I know of no one interested in running pthreaded ubik,
>>
>
> Really ? =A0Then you haven't been paying attention ;)
>

Let's see..this mailbox has no mention of anyone wanting it since I
mentioned it to Jason as something I was working on in the
summer...neither does that mailbox...nor does that RT queue...nor this
or that mailing list..nor....

As far as I can tell, Jason is the only one expressing any interest in
the past 8 months or so..and that was only for the monthly newsletter.

So I guess I haven't been paying attention.

:)

>
>> so there's a bit of chicken and egg -- i.e., I know what fixes need to
>> be done, but need some people willing to run it and give a green light
>> on it (or to kick me and tell me it's still broken). =A0And I'd need to
>> carve out some time to work on it.
>>
>
> AFAIK the major bug (the VL DB server handing clients incorrect file-serv=
ers
> addresses causing them to lose access to volumes) hasn't been resolved ?
>
>

Correct.  (Long, boring description with lots of details deleted -- if
someone wants those details, let me know).

Steven