On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Simon Wilkinson<[email protected]> 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. > > From deciding to ship 1.6, to release, there's probably a good couple of > months of release candidiates and testing in order to be able to create a > credible 1.6.0. That requires that the input into that process is a > reasonable source tree (The current 1.5.x / HEAD sadly doesn't class as > reasonable due to the problems with demand attach). > > So, what can be in 1.6 largely falls down to how soon people want it. If the > above process was to start today, my opinion is that demand attach would > have to be removed to do so. But, we could do that, if there's a desire to > get the other features in 1.5 out to an audience promptly. So, I think > there's an equation that looks something like: > > Today: current 1.5 without demand attach > Later: current 1.5 > Later still: current 1.5 with rxosd > Even later: current 1.5 with rxosd and rxk5 >
As far as integration requirements go, is the consensus that rxosd is nearer the mark than rxk5? My gut feeling says otherwise: forward-porting rxosd to the DAFS volume package is going to be non-trivial. -Tom _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
