Matt W. Benjamin wrote: > 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
The question is "what is the goal of 1.6?" There are not many functional feature changes on the HEAD minus DAFS and DAFS is something that many sites want. They have been listening to talks about how great it is for the last 2.5 years. >From my perspective if 1.6 is going to ship it must be capable of being run with DAFS turned on even if it is off by default. Both 1.6-DAFS and 1.6+DAFS must be tested and determined to be stable. I do not believe that removing the DAFS code at this point is a viable option for 1.6. Nor do I believe that leaving the code in the tree and disabling it will buy us very much considering the large impact the addition of the DAFS support has had on the source tree. It is unclear how stable 1.5 is with or without DAFS. We know that 1.4+DAFS is being used at Morgan Stanley based upon the statements at the 2008 Workshop. We also know that attempts by several individuals and institutions over the last year to deploy 1.5 with or with DAFS have gone badly. Many patches have been applied to the tree since then. Convincing sites that were previously burned to start testing again is always a challenge. Jeffrey Altman _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
