Hi,
It is with surprise, humor, and alarm that I've been reading the various
messages within this thread.
I have to admit that I have been frustrated at various times in the past at the
seemingly-glacial pace of releases and new features. But I'm also alternatively
amazed at the quality of O
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 3:06 PM, wrote:
> head at the moment), maybe we should think about this what about
> asking IBM about their current feelings? It's not clear below whether IBM's
> professed desire for backwards compatibility is 12-years old, or current.
>
It sounded like active discus
On 9/27/2012 3:06 PM, step...@physics.unc.edu wrote:
> The point of this email is that I hope the Elders and Gatekeepers *do*
> know that they're appreciated, even if it's not voiced often. The fact
> that OpenAFS is still "alive and kickin'" is proof to your skill and
> tenacity. Well done.
Thank
> Backward compatibility is a requirement for the entire community. The
> only criteria that is specific to IBM is that we cannot turn off older
> RPCs for which there already are replacements and we cannot completely
> get rid of rxkad or kaserver from the code base. There are also some
> implic
Troy Benjegerdes writes:
>> Backward compatibility is a requirement for the entire community. The
>> only criteria that is specific to IBM is that we cannot turn off older
>> RPCs for which there already are replacements and we cannot completely
>> get rid of rxkad or kaserver from the code base
>> The primary impediment to moving forward is a lack of community funded
>> development resources. There are very few tasks left which can be
>> accomplished in just a week or two and the on-going maintenance expenses
>> are substantial.
>
> And we are in a circular dependency.. we can't move for
