Hi, a) with Russ b) Intuitively I would have voted and would vote for the more NFS, POSIX flavor of timestamp granularity. In prior discussion, that was not the consensus.
Matt ----- "Russ Allbery" <[email protected]> wrote: > Simon Wilkinson <[email protected]> writes: > > > Would those with problems with the current draft be prepared to > suggest > > new wording for: > > > a) the epoch value > > b) the granularity > > As nice as it would be to be able to represent old timestamps in the > file > system, we've never been able to before (at least consistently), and > I > think the simplicity benefits for compatibility with current code > bases of > sticking with the POSIX epoch are substantial. > > I don't have an opinion on the granularity. For me, the benefits of > matching NFS and the POSIX timestamp granularity is fairly evenly > balanced > against the drawbacks of increasing the size of all of our protocol > packets. > -- Matt Benjamin The Linux Box 206 South Fifth Ave. Suite 150 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 http://linuxbox.com tel. 734-761-4689 fax. 734-769-8938 cel. 734-216-5309 _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
