Site Specific ACL Bits/chown: Was: [OpenAFS-devel] posix chown again

[Matt Benjamin]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Derrick,

I'm sorry my previous remark sounded overdone.  I agree with your
off-list statement that this feature is not big enough to hang all this
on, by itself.

Derrick Brashear wrote:

> 
> Possibly also more opposition.
>  

Granted, for all I know, there's lots.  I was actually trying,
apparently unsuccessfully, to make a real argument that it should be
more difficult to take Joe Admin's special site feature away, than to
keep it around.  Here I'm referring to what Jeff Hutzelman, correctly as
far as I can see, called "the bits reserved for their use," not this
pseudo sysv chown feature we're supposedly debating.

> 
> won't run it because they're scared. I don't want to chase away users.
> At the same time, it's important to support the things people need to do.
> 
> This is mostly orthogonal to the issue at hand.

I didn't think so.  Where are we elsewise going to debate it?

> 
> How many are needed versus how many could be elided if we did a better
> job of representing what people want to do? For instance, -L was a good
> idea but doesn't amp things up enough. The equivalent, meaning "assume I
> have lots of memory and processor, just optimize for fast and not memory
> usage" instead of having to increase threads, sendsize, udpsize,
> callbacks, etc... or fewer switches, or persistent state based on the
> expected number of callbacks to issue, etc.
> 
> Again, orthogonal.

Again, maybe it's not, because that argument is out there, and was in
use on this thread, or so it appeared to me.


> If you remember, I wrote the original patch we're now beating the topic
> of to death. 

That is sort of, well, true yes.

> 
> At this point, I disagree. It may well be that we should move to a model
> where this is *stated* but at the moment it's not true.

I really would prefer to say there need be no conflict between having
some experimental features that most users shouldn't select, and having
tests that validate the features we are intentionally be supporting.  If
it's a matter of, well, stating that, then, why not state it?

>  
> I offer no conclusion here as I don't feel I can. We should obviously
> keep discussing this.
> 
> 

Maybe, as you suggested off-list, this thread per se can't bear the weight.


Matt


- --

Matt Benjamin

The Linux Box
206 South Fifth Ave. Suite 150
Ann Arbor, MI  48104

http://linuxbox.com

tel. 734-761-4689
fax. 734-769-8938
cel. 734-216-5309

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFJPq2JJiSUUSaRdSURCAhgAJ9iVC5ABzYB15XQiDiUKa4QAxJp1ACggERS
K26QXotbHA6q89k7cDd1NbE=
=zIFn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----