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

Steven Jenkins steven.jenkins@gmail.com
Thu, 17 Dec 2009 19:55:36 -0500

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,=
>>>> you in fact meaning to say that the option would exist, but not be men=
>>>> in the usage? =A0I guess I'd also like to hear from Steven on pthreade=
>>>> =A0It appears that it actually isn't 100% stable, but is close, and ap=
>>>> 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=
> 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).