On Thu, 2002-02-28 at 14:06, Søren Schmidt wrote:
> It seems Scott Long wrote:
> > > As I have stated several times, I have no problem with ATAPI being
> > > sent through CAM as long as the usual way stays (some of us cannot
> > > afford the weight of those extra layers, nor loose functionality).
> > > I'd do the integration somewhat differently to even further minimise 
> > > the diffs, but that is really not the issue here...
> > > So if we can get *serious* commitment from a committer to take up
> > > these loose ends, lets talk about what to do, if not my offer stands :)
> > 
> > I'll raise my hand here.  I've been keenly interested in this for a
> > while, since it will make my UDF work much simpler.  I'm also getting my
> Hmm, your UDF code should know nothing about the lower layers, but 
> we've been over that already :)

Yes, and hopefully the filesystem won't have to care, but tools like
newfs_udf will.

> > feet wet in CAM, and I have the two CAM gurus nearby if things get too
> > hairy.  I fully indend for this to be a cooperative effort with Thomas;
> > I'm mainly raising my hand to take the abuse that will no doubt happen
> > once in a while.
> Sure, maybe we should make Thomas a committer so he could look after
> it himself ? Interested ? Got the time ? I'm all ears for volounteers...

Ummm, I'm volunteering to shepherd these initiatives.  The thought of
making Thomas a committer had crossed my mind, but I hadn't brought it
up with anyone yet.
If you're not comfortable with me volunteering for this, please say so.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to