"Matt W. Benjamin" <[email protected]> writes: > I do not believe I missed anything. I do know that rxosd has been > presented to us starting at the hackathon in 2006. I agree with what > you've said, but time matters too--from an openafs perspective, do you > and the other gatekeepers believe that we can arrive at a stable > protocol extension in, say, 45 days?
I'm not sure that's a useful question. We clearly need a protocol extension, so it's going to take as long as a protocol extension will take. The effort should go into making that process effective and efficient. There are many places where the AFS protocol needs to change to get things that we all want into AFS implementations. Even if we can find some temporary hack to avoid one in a particular spot, that doesn't solve the problem for all the other places where the protocol needs to change. And those temporary hacks hurt maintainability, backward compatibility, and other things we care about. We need to not take end runs around a standardization process and really solve the problem, or we're going to get into a worse mess than we have now. And that's not a good outcome for anyone. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
