On 22 Jun 2009, at 16:04, Simon Wilkinson wrote:
I can't help but feel that there's a need for a more general discussions about the timescales that people require from 1.6.
One further thing that occurs to me is that we don't necessarily have to delay rxosd integration until 1.6 has shipped. Pretty much as soon as we decide that we're pushing for 1.6, I'd imagine we'd fork the current 'development' branch to provide a 1.6 branch, and a development branch. After that point, we'd be free to take anything rxosd related on the development branch, without it impacting on our plans to get 1.6 out of the door. It would just mean the gatekeepers having to maintain three branches (1.4, the-soon-to-be 1.6, and development), and I'm sure they can do that!
S. _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
