> If we know of existing widespread use, that's a different matter. It > might not be if we'd had an active AFS standardization process that > those users should have come to and didn't, but we had no > standardization process apart from what Jeff was maintaining on grand > (which I don't believe covers this area). I don't think it's okay to > punish people for not following a non-existent process. We're the ones > who didn't provide a way for them to reserve a field, so we should take > the lumps and be the ones to provide a backward-compatible way forward.
So mark the ones you know of as "used by differing parties" and give the folks who want a new field a new one so things can actually progress. If they step on each other, there is then a process to get a new permanent place, and the onus is on the conflicting users with local hacks to clean up their act and move their bits to the permanent place. Let's get the problem under control, and move on. Registries aren't rocket science. If there's nowhere to register the use of a field, then let's create one and solve the problem permanently. If no one else wants to do it, I'll step up and do it. -- db _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
