On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Steven Jenkins <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Derrick Brashear<[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> > >> 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. > > > > So you're comfortable with a 1.6, including DAFS, with the set of > known issues, as long as testing of the actual HEAD occurs? > > As I said, I'll re-review, but certainly all the pieces which are performance are things which can be resolved after a release with the base functionality.
