Hi, Honestly, I don't really believe that there is a real distinction between fields we don't know someone is using (0+ users are unknown), and the case at hand, where there are known users, and the known users are agreed on an accommodation (0+ users are unknown).
Matt ----- Original Message ----- From: "Russ Allbery" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, June 8, 2009 1:41:53 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [AFS3-std] RxOSD claim on 2 structure members > Yeah, I was thinking of that, and that may be too strong. We may want > to apply the strong version only with protocol fields that we know > people have been using. > It occurs to me that if we know of unused and spare fields that we're > pretty sure no one is using, we should try to make a really loud noise > about how we're reserving them for *only* protocol changes that come out > of this working group so that we can hang on to them. Exactly, yes. -- 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 _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
