[OpenAFS] Re: Proposed changes for server log rotation

Simon Wilkinson sxw@inf.ed.ac.uk
Mon, 6 Dec 2010 11:07:15 +0000

On 6 Dec 2010, at 04:28, Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> wrote:
> Features that are backwards-incompatible, and cause nontrivial downtime
> to revert, I'd hope we'd wait at least a release.

We could easily structure this change in a way that preserved backwards comp=

> And keep in mind I'm trying to think of stable release
> cycles in terms of what was discussed at BPW 2010, not the glacial pace
> of e.g. 1.2 -> 1.4. It wouldn't/shouldn't take that long.

We have still to demonstrate that we can rapidly make stable releases. 1.6 i=
s taking an age to get out of the door, primarily due to demand attach.

> And rapid changes can get really annoying, too. Have already gotten a
> little annoying (Just a little! :)

As we haven't done any stable releases with major changes recently, I can on=
ly assume that you are referring to the rate of change on master. In this ar=
ea, I have little sympathy - there's pretty clear evidence that we need to i=
nnovate or die, and major user demand for new features. This inevitably is g=
oing to cause a high degree of developer visible change.

>> The relationship between being in UserList and having effective root
>> access to the machine is poorly documented, and poorly understood. I
>> suspect that this discussion has come as an unpleasant surprise to
>> many people. If you add into the mix the extremely weak authentication
>> and connection security that protects it from external attack, then I
>> think that this is a hole we should be removing from the default
>> install as soon as possible.
> It's also existed for the past 10+N years. That's not an excuse to keep
> it around, but it's not like this is anything new.

Our encryption technologies are significantly more vulnerable than they were=
 10 years ago. The threat profile of the Internet has changed beyond recogni=
tion in that time too.