Hi,
sorry opensolaris-discuss, this originally bounced. Trying again.
We're proposing a generic "fs-discuss" for OpenSolaris.
Thanks for opinions/remarks,
FrankH.
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006, Manish Rai Jain wrote:
I'd second Frank's proposition. My team ported NTFS (still elementry) to
Solaris,
On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 19:12 +0200, Frank Hofmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> sorry opensolaris-discuss, this originally bounced. Trying again.
>
> We're proposing a generic "fs-discuss" for OpenSolaris.
>
This would be great!
+1
-Mark
>
> Thanks for opinions/remarks,
> FrankH.
>
>
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2
Frank Hofmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Why _not_ have a "[EMAIL PROTECTED]", and a fs community
> >> that deals with anything that's not [NUZ]FS ?
> >>
> >> Thanks for some thoughts on this,
Alternatively, the following more general proposal
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/threa
Rainer Orth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Frank Hofmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > >> Why _not_ have a "[EMAIL PROTECTED]", and a fs community
> > >> that deals with anything that's not [NUZ]FS ?
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for some thoughts on this,
>
> Alternatively, the following more general p
Frank Hofmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> sorry opensolaris-discuss, this originally bounced. Trying again.
>
> We're proposing a generic "fs-discuss" for OpenSolaris.
+1 of course!
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frank Hofmann wrote:
sorry opensolaris-discuss, this originally bounced. Trying again.
We're proposing a generic "fs-discuss" for OpenSolaris.
Any reason why we shouldn't have a generic filesystem community? You're
proposing a discussion list, plus there is work afoot by yourself and
possibl
Rainer Orth wrote:
Alternatively, the following more general proposal
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=28219渻
might be worth consideration.
The ultimate outcome of that discussion was that it was decided that
opensolaris-code would not be removed as was planned,
Eric Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Frank Hofmann wrote:
> > sorry opensolaris-discuss, this originally bounced. Trying again.
> >
> > We're proposing a generic "fs-discuss" for OpenSolaris.
>
> Any reason why we shouldn't have a generic filesystem community? You're
That's exactly what my
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006, Rainer Orth wrote:
Eric Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Frank Hofmann wrote:
sorry opensolaris-discuss, this originally bounced. Trying again.
We're proposing a generic "fs-discuss" for OpenSolaris.
Any reason why we shouldn't have a generic filesystem community? You'
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006, Frank Hofmann wrote:
We're proposing a generic "fs-discuss" for OpenSolaris...
I'm pretty sure that a mailing list that isn't either a project list or
community list is not allowed by current opensolaris policy. So probably
the way to go is to change this request so that it
Eric Boutilier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jun 2006, Frank Hofmann wrote:
> We're proposing a generic "fs-discuss" for OpenSolaris...
>
> I'm pretty sure that a mailing list that isn't either a project list or
> community list is not allowed by current opensolaris policy. So proba
Rainer Orth wrote:
* Therefore, an alternative model would be to use the storage community
(given that block and object based storage are getting closer recently,
cf. the object storage devices work for SCSI) as an umbrella for both
block-based storage (e.g. iscsi, svm projets, maybe others?) and
Eric Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > i.e. create a generic Filesystems community and grandfather the existing
> > FS-related communities as projects, maybe adding more related projects at
> > the same time.
>
> While I agree, there is the not-so-small problem that there currently is
> no mech
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Does this mean you don't like the generic fs community because the current
comunity structure is wrong and you cannot change that?
Let me try to articulate my concerns a little better.
I'm 100% in favor of having an FS community. I've also mentioned many
times I would l
* Eric Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-06-29 15:12]:
> Rainer Orth wrote:
> >>* Therefore, an alternative model would be to use the storage community
> >>(given that block and object based storage are getting closer recently,
> >>cf. the object storage devices work for SCSI) as an umbrella for both
Eric Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps I'm overly paranoid, and having an FS community would be just fine
> alongside UFS, NFS, and ZFS.
There are "forgotten" fs like hsfs and pcfs and they need a home.
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EM
Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are "forgotten" fs like hsfs and pcfs and they need a home.
And there are other generic filesystem questions that need to be discussed.
e.g.:
Why is there no problem to return more than 255 chars for a
path name component with re
17 matches
Mail list logo
