[OpenAFS-devel] Road map, was Proposal for capabilities support in Unix client 1.4.x

[Steven Jenkins]

On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Simon Wilkinson<sxw@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> I can't help but feel that there's a need for a more general discussions
> about the timescales that people require from 1.6.
>
> From deciding to ship 1.6, to release, there's probably a good couple of
> months of release candidiates and testing in order to be able to create a
> credible 1.6.0. That requires that the input into that process is a
> reasonable source tree (The current 1.5.x / HEAD sadly doesn't class as
> reasonable due to the problems with demand attach).
>
> So, what can be in 1.6 largely falls down to how soon people want it. If the
> above process was to start today, my opinion is that demand attach would
> have to be removed to do so. But, we could do that, if there's a desire to
> get the other features in 1.5 out to an audience promptly. So, I think
> there's an equation that looks something like:
>
> Today: current 1.5 without demand attach
> Later: current 1.5
> Later still: current 1.5 with rxosd
> Even later: current 1.5 with rxosd and rxk5
>
> I suspect that at which point an individual believes the 1.6 release line
> should be drawn probably depends very much upon their sites priorities. In a
> world with no guaranteed effort, of course, there is the chance that the
> ordering of these might also change. My gut feeling is that if we were to
> decide that there definitely will not be a 1.6 this year, then rxosd has a
> chance of making it in. But where does that leave people who want the other
> things that could be in an earlier 1.5?
>
> My personal view is that there is more than enough code in 1.5 to make
> stabilising for 1.6 a difficult task. It think we should draw a line and get
> 1.6 out of the door as soon as possible (without demand attach, if fixes
> aren't forthcoming), and then consider a considerably more rapid release
> cycle for 1.8 with rxosd.
>

Could you clarify which of the DAFS bugs you are concerned about?
Several of the more serious DAFS bugs have had patches submitted over
the past few months..

I think it would be extremely helpful if the gatekeepers were able to
classify some of those as 'show-stoppers for 1.6' vs vs 'not
show-stoppers for 1.6'.

Thanks,
Steven Jenkins
End Point Corporation
http://www.endpoint.com/