I thought that the goal was to remove the known blockers. Then a 1.6 could ship with DAFS available but not configured by default, the assumption being that viced was acceptably stable in that configuration. It would be nice to start talking about how to better validate with DAFS enabled, certainly.
Matt ----- Original Message ----- From: "Derrick Brashear" <[email protected]> To: "Steven Jenkins" <[email protected]> Cc: "openafs-devel" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 11:33:15 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [OpenAFS-devel] Road map, was Proposal for capabilities support in Unix client 1.4.x Could you clarify which of the DAFS bugs you are concerned about? Several of the more serious DAFS bugs have had patches submitted over the past few months.. The ones we don't know about. I'll recheck but I don't think any of the listed issues is a show stopper. The real issue is the code as-is has had very little testing. Patches based on it, applied to other trees, have, but that's not really testing I'd want to put faith in for a new stable series. Derrick _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
