Hi Jeff, I respect your viewpoints on this, and they justify your positions. Still, the fact that rxgk enabled a host of features not possible with rxk5, meant that there would always be a reason to continue the effort.
Regards, Matt ----- "Jeffrey Hutzelman" <[email protected]> wrote: > > False. rxk5 was never integrated, and by that I don't mean merely > that > the code doesn't appear in the OpenAFS mainline, but that the sort of > integration work we're doing _right now_ to define how things are > supposed to interoperate and how a non-flag-day transition works were > never done. For most sites, the notion that one has to upgrade every > server in the entire cell before beginning to do any testing to see > if > the new code is desirable is a total non-starter. There was also > nothing like standardization work or even a public development > process; > I don't recall reading or being involved in any sort of design > discussion. > > And no, since securing callbacks does not depend on rxgk, that was > not > the reason for waiting. Personally, my reason for not wanting to > adopt > rxk5 in 2007, other than the ones I already mentioned, was that doing > so > looked very likely to insure that rxgk would _never_ happen. And in > fact, it was my opinion at the time that deploying rxk5 and never > getting rxgk out the door was in fact worse than deploying nothing. > > > -- Jeff > -- 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
