On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Tom Keiser <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > That's the wild card I see in this. I'm not sure that's true but without more in-depth looking I'm not sure. -- Derrick
