Sounds good.
On Mar 31, 2011, at 9:09 AM, Phillip Moore wrote: > It appears there is significant interest in working with EFS in my new role, > but not necessarily for what you would expect. We're working on a basic > framework for SAN and NAS administration, and we're very interested in > reviving the old NetApp code, and implementing something new as a framework > for managing SAN storage. We are also *starting* our Linux environment with > NFSv4 using krb5, and won't be using NFSv3 at all, so we'll finally get that > support (which will, BTW, mean being able to drop the requirement that efsd > run as root). > > Now, I obviously still have commit access (let's face it -- 95% (probably > more) of the code changes in git belong to wpmoore anyway), and I've signed > the contributor agreement, but let me know how you guys want to handle the > process going forward. > > Realistically, I was always the "gatekeeper" for changes that were merged > with the master branch, and for what constituted EFS 3. Since I've seen > virtually nothing done to EFS since I left my previous role, and since I have > been told the old team is focused on issues with EFS 2, we need to make sure > we're on the same proverbial page about how things in EFS 3 will move forward. > > I can happily maintain my own branches for the functionality I need, but I > will be implementing things in a generic, configurable fashion, and > everything will be intended for inclusion in the main master branch. > > Let me know what you guys think about this. > _______________________________________________ > EFS-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.openefs.org/mailman/listinfo/efs-dev _______________________________________________ EFS-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.openefs.org/mailman/listinfo/efs-dev
