[OpenAFS-devel] Road map, was Proposal for capabilities support
in Unix client 1.4.x
Derrick Brashear
shadow@gmail.com
Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:43:01 -0400
--001636310929f80a4f046cf51488
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Tom Keiser <tkeiser@sinenomine.net> wrote:
> 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
> >
>
> As far as integration requirements go, is the consensus that rxosd is
> nearer the mark than rxk5? My gut feeling says otherwise:
> forward-porting rxosd to the DAFS volume package is going to be
> non-trivial.
>
That's the wild card I see in this. I'm not sure that's true but without
more in-depth looking I'm not sure.
--
Derrick
--001636310929f80a4f046cf51488
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Tom Kei=
ser <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:tkeiser@sinenomine.net">tkeiser=
@sinenomine.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" =
style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8=
ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class=3D"im">On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Simon Wilkinson<<a h=
ref=3D"mailto:sxw@inf.ed.ac.uk">sxw@inf.ed.ac.uk</a>> wrote:<br>
> I can't help but feel that there's a need for a more general d=
iscussions<br>
> about the timescales that people require from 1.6.<br>
><br>
> From deciding to ship 1.6, to release, there's probably a good cou=
ple of<br>
> months of release candidiates and testing in order to be able to creat=
e a<br>
> credible 1.6.0. That requires that the input into that process is a<br=
>
> reasonable source tree (The current 1.5.x / HEAD sadly doesn't cla=
ss as<br>
> reasonable due to the problems with demand attach).<br>
><br>
> So, what can be in 1.6 largely falls down to how soon people want it. =
If the<br>
> above process was to start today, my opinion is that demand attach wou=
ld<br>
> have to be removed to do so. But, we could do that, if there's a d=
esire to<br>
> get the other features in 1.5 out to an audience promptly. So, I think=
<br>
> there's an equation that looks something like:<br>
><br>
> Today: current 1.5 without demand attach<br>
> Later: current 1.5<br>
> Later still: current 1.5 with rxosd<br>
> Even later: current 1.5 with rxosd and rxk5<br>
><br>
<br>
</div>As far as integration requirements go, is the consensus that rxosd is=
<br>
nearer the mark than rxk5? =A0My gut feeling says otherwise:<br>
forward-porting rxosd to the DAFS volume package is going to be<br>
non-trivial.<br>
<font color=3D"#888888"></font></blockquote><div><br>That's the wild ca=
rd I see in this. I'm not sure that's true but without more in-dept=
h looking I'm not sure. <br></div></div><br>-- <br>Derrick<br>
--001636310929f80a4f046cf51488--