[OpenAFS] Re: [OpenAFS-devel] 1.6 and post-1.6 OpenAFS branch management and schedule

[Russ Allbery]

Simon Wilkinson <sxw@inf.ed.ac.uk> writes:
> On 17 Jun 2010, at 21:29, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Steven Jenkins <steven.jenkins@gmail.com> writes:

>>> I thought that enabling DAFS to be on by default was the major feature
>>> of 1.6.

>> Shipping DAFS and declaring it supported is the major feature of 1.6.
>> Making it the default is another question entirely.

> The difficulty here is - what should packagers build? If DAFS isn't on
> by default, then most folk won't actually get the benefit of running it
> unless they build their own AFS servers.

There is that.  I intend to ship with DAFS enabled for Debian, but the
Debian packages have always taken a fairly aggressive approach to enabling
features.  (They have had supergroups enabled for quite some time, for
example, and also enable UNIX domain sockets for fssync, and I intend to
enable disconnected as well.)

> I suspect that shipping 1.6 with dafs disabled by default isn't actually
> going to result in much perceived change over 1.4.

> I wonder how hard it would be to ship both versions of the fileserver
> side by side ...

I should also say explicitly that "another question entirely" doesn't mean
that I'd rule it out completely.  I do think it's a bit aggressive, but
given the long delay in 1.6, maybe it's time to be aggressive.  I just
wanted to make clear that having it enabled by default is not the criteria
for 1.6 and has not, at least in my mind, ever been the criteria for 1.6.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>