Frank Batschulat (Home) wrote: > On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 10:57:20 +0200, Darren J Moffat <Darren.Moffat at > Sun.COM> wrote: > >> I think this case needs a formal opinion. I'm derailing it an will >> happily provide the opinion text (as either majority or minority). >> >> Do other ARC members wish to vote now or when they see a draft opinion ? > > I'd hope and expect this opinion will contain a reasonable proposal for the > future how > the arc expects to deal with such situations in general.
Not from me it won't. If you wish to provide such text I'd be happy to include it in the opinion for review. > sooner or later, psarc has to face the fact that old, dead, out of > development products > and features have to and will be EOF/EOF'ed, no matter if there is a > replacement or not. That is more of a business issue. The job of the ARC is to review the change to the architecture and if it feels necessary point out gaps/issues to the business side of the process. That is exactly what I'm doing here. There is a HUGE difference between wanting to EOF the particular implementation of a feature and no longer requiring the functionality at all. As I've already said I support the EOF of the CacheFS code base what I don't support is the fact that we have no equivalent for NFSv4 and CIFS and I believe that we need one (not least of which because there are competitive offerings). -- Darren J Moffat
