Jeff -- Considering the later discussion of NIM2 being independent of the Kerberos 1.7 libraries, is 1.7 a non-issue for NIM2?
Thanks. Kevin > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Sam Hartman > Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 5:43 PM > To: kfwdev@mit.edu > Subject: KFW releases off the trunk will become harder as 1.7 features > startgetting used > > One long-running aspect of our release process is that the trunk is > allowed to take advantage of features on the trunk. In particular > this means things like as we get new implementations of CCAPI, KIM and > other APIs available, we'll want to start using them. And we don't > generally support backward compatibility for this sort of change. > > One consequence of this is that we may start running into cases where > specific changes to KFW will end up depending on the 1.7 release or > at least the 1.7 release branch. I'd expect to get to a point in a > few months where any significant changes to KFW would depend on 1.7. > > We've been traditionally very reluctant to pull significant features > for future releases back to old release branches. I'd expect Tom to > continue that practice. We may develop more well defined guidelines > for when pull-ups are appropriate, but I would expect anything we came > to consensus on to be relatively conservative in this regard. > > There may be projects that we want to consider and try and avoid > blocking behind 1.7. I think that quite soon, we're going to want to > establish a deadline for any such project to be proposed and for us to > at least have the community discussion about whether we want to avoid > blocking the projects behind 1.7. > > Kevin, I'd appreciate it if you could work with Jeff and anyone else > who has an opinion and decide on a deadline by which projects that > want to avoid being blocked behind 1.7 must be proposed. > > I think that shorter than two weeks from today would be unrealistic. > I think that a deadline beyond Jan 15 would probably be too long. > > > One specific concern I have is the NIM 2.0 work. There was a project > proposal over the summer for the user experience. However there > hasn't been any proposals made regarding technical impact or how the > user experience would be accomplished. > > That's fine, but until such proposals are reviewed, we as a group > won't be in a position to avoid taking NIM 2.0 design into account and > avoid making things harder for NIM 2.0. > > Thanks for your consideration > > --Sam ... _______________________________________________ kfwdev mailing list kfwdev@mit.edu http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/kfwdev