On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:15:28 -0400 Derrick Brashear <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I am also currently not releasing the code publicly, because the > > protocol used in it is a nonstandard extension (although using reserved > > RPC code points), and I don't want someone running this in a public > > cell. But am I just being overly cautious and silly about that? I have > > no problem with code review (though it seems a bit early for that) or > > people experimenting with it or anything, but I just imagine what > > happens if Joe Q Admin sees "here's some code to make afs go faster"... > > the sort of people to whom it would be useful would be only the ones > who control their whole environment anyway; Well sorta, but... while you need to control the server and client for it to make a difference, if you install it on client A and fileserver B, if fileserver B is _also_ open to the outside world (or client A can contact the outside world), that seems like a problem. > i'd expect packagers to steer clear of it and thus unless someone was > building their own stuff end to end it wouldn't matter anyway. Well... some people do do that :) Less common on Linux, though, I suppose, though pulling patches into existing packaging frameworks isn't hard. I also meant to mention that this is all Linux-only at the moment. The fileserver bits are trivial to port, but I assume the client bits are more work (at least, in order to do zero-copy stuff...). -- Andrew Deason [email protected] _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
