Ian Collins wrote:
> But they are involved in the discussions around which features should be
> there, and help to prioritise those features.
>
> I guess my fear is the external ZFS developers have adopted the Oracle
> rather than the OpenSolaris development model. We all know where that
> le
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 04/10/11 09:25 AM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>> Right. And in the real world, customers are generally not involved with
>> architectural discussions of products. Their input is collected and
>> feed into the process, but they don't get to si
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 08:56 +1200, Ian Collins wrote:
> > On 04/10/11 05:41 AM, Chris Forgeron wrote:
> > > I see your point, but you also have to understand that sometimes too
> many helpers/opinions are a bad thing. There is a set "core"
On Sat, 9 Apr 2011, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
Right. And in the real world, customers are generally not involved with
architectural discussions of products. Their input is collected and
feed into the process, but they don't get to sit at the whiteboard with
developers as the work on the designs.
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Chris Forgeron wrote:
> I see your point, but you also have to understand that sometimes too many
> helpers/opinions are a bad thing. There is a set "core" of ZFS developers
> who make a lot of this move forward, and they are the key right now. The rest
> of us
On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 08:56 +1200, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 04/10/11 05:41 AM, Chris Forgeron wrote:
> > I see your point, but you also have to understand that sometimes too many
> > helpers/opinions are a bad thing. There is a set "core" of ZFS developers
> > who make a lot of this move forward,
On 04/10/11 09:25 AM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 08:56 +1200, Ian Collins wrote:
On 04/10/11 05:41 AM, Chris Forgeron wrote:
I see your point, but you also have to understand that sometimes too many
helpers/opinions are a bad thing. There is a set "core" of ZFS developers w
On 04/10/11 05:41 AM, Chris Forgeron wrote:
I see your point, but you also have to understand that sometimes too many
helpers/opinions are a bad thing. There is a set "core" of ZFS developers who
make a lot of this move forward, and they are the key right now. The rest of us will just
muddy
2011 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Going forward after Oracle - Let's get
organized, let's get started.
I glance at the list after years of neglect (selfishly...after almost losing my
pool), and see stuff like this: shady backroom irc-kiddie bullshit. please:
names, mailing l
> "js" == Joerg Schilling writes:
js> This is interesting. Where is this group hosted?
+1
I glance at the list after years of neglect (selfishly...after almost
losing my pool), and see stuff like this: shady backroom irc-kiddie
bullshit. please: names, mailing lists, urls, hg servers.
Ah, that's all I really need to know. I expected it to be public, but I
completely understand the need to keep it private so it can move forward
properly. This should hopefully provide enough record for other ZFS
well-wishers who are searching for signs of post-Oracle development.
-Origin
Richard Elling wrote:
> > The feeling I get is that while there is plenty of userland work being
> > done, there is next to nothing on ZFS development outside of the Oracle
> > camp.
>
> There is an active ZFS working group where many people contributing code to
> the core
> ZFS are members. I
There is ZFS development happening outside of Oracle. Many of the
active ZFS developers at a *variety* of organizations are collaborating
within the illumos community using a private e-mail list much like an
standards body Working Group (we even call ourselves the ZFS Working
Group). And not all
On Mar 25, 2011, at 12:17 PM, Chris Forgeron wrote:
> I’m curious where ZFS development is going.
Forward :-)
> I’ve been reading through the lists, and watching Oracle, Nexenta, Illumos,
> and OpenIndiana for signs of life.
>
> The feeling I get is that while there is plenty of userland work
I'm curious where ZFS development is going.
I've been reading through the lists, and watching Oracle, Nexenta, Illumos, and
OpenIndiana for signs of life.
The feeling I get is that while there is plenty of userland work being done,
there is next to nothing on ZFS development outside of the Orac
15 matches
Mail list logo
