On 18 Jan 2005, at 4:06 pm, Patrick Caulfield wrote:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 03:46:18PM +0000, Tim Cutts wrote:
On 17 Jan 2005, at 5:42 pm, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 09:28:56AM +0000, Patrick Caulfield wrote:lvm2 - in active development, upstream helpful but often busy.
device-mapper - largely stable. occasional releases.
lvm10 - stable. no more upstream development at all.
lvm-common - native package. small number of bugs need sorting
out
multipath-tools - in active development, upstream very helpful.
I'm interrested onm co-maintaining lvm2 and device-mapper.
As am I - we use these heavily on some fairly serious kit at work, so I
can justify the time... co-maintaining sounds like a sensible thing to
do.
So how about you three co-maintain lvm2 & devmapper (and maybe lvm-common ? it's
as much part of LVM as the lvm2 package really), and I'll hang onto lvm10 &
multipath.
Sounds good to me. I'll be able to help you with testing multipath-tools too; that and lvm2 are the principal bits we use (we don't use Debian device-mapper stuff because we build our own kernels from scratch)
We use this stuff on both IA64 (HP rx4640) and i386 (HP DL360/380, mostly) architectures to talk to our dual-fabric SAN (HP StorageWorks HSV110 controllers on the back)
How should we coordinate this?
Tim
-- Dr Tim Cutts Informatics Systems Group, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute GPG: 1024D/E3134233 FE3D 6C73 BBD6 726A A3F5 860B 3CDD 3F56 E313 4233
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]