On February 13, 2009 7:58:51 PM -0600 Bob Friesenhahn
<bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote:
With this level of overhead, I am surprise that there is any remaining
development motion on ZFS at all.
come on now. with all due respect, you are attempting to stifle
relevant discussion and that is, well, bordering on ridiculous.
i sure have learned a lot from this thread. now of course that is
meaningless because i don't and almost certainly never will contribute
to zfs, but i assume there are others who have learned from this thread.
that's definitely a good thing.
this thread also appears to be the impetus to change priorities on
zfs development.
Today I sat down at 9:00 AM to read the new mail for the day and did not
catch up until five hours later. Quite a lot of the reading was this
(now) useless discussion thread. It is now useless since after five
hours of reading, there were no ideas expressed that had not been
expressed before.
lastly, WOW! if this thread is worthless to you, learn to use the
delete button. especially if you read that slowly. i know i certainly
couldn't keep up with all my incoming mail if i read everything.
i'm sorry to berate you, as you do make very valuable contributions to
the discussion here, but i take offense at your attempts to limit
discussion simply because you know everything there is to know about
the subject.
great, now i am guilty of being "overhead".
-frank
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
