Independent of anything else— Maintain it. Send patches to gerrit. Get the requisite +2 reviews on the patches. Amar still has commit privs AFAIK; he can merge anything that gets two votes.
It's open source meritocracy. If there's real support for it then it makes a stronger case for adding it back to the community packages. On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 4:14 PM Kaleb Keithley <[email protected]> wrote: > I personally wouldn't call three years ago — when we started to deprecate > it, in glusterfs-3.9 — a recent change. > > As a community the decision was made to move to NFS-Ganesha as the > preferred NFS solution, but it was agreed to keep the old code in the tree > for those who wanted it. There have been plans to drop it from the > community packages for most of those three years, but we didn't follow > through across the board until fairly recently. Perhaps the most telling > piece of data is that it's been gone from the packages in the CentOS > Storage SIG in glusterfs-4.0, -4.1, -5, -6, and -7 with no complaints ever, > that I can recall. > > Ganesha is a preferable solution because it supports NFSv4, NFSv4.1, > NFSv4.2, and pNFS, in addition to legacy NFSv3. More importantly, it is > actively developed, maintained, and supported, both in the community and > commercially. There are several vendors selling it, or support for it; and > there are community packages for it for all the same distributions that > Gluster packages are available for. > > Out in the world, the default these days is NFSv4. Specifically v4.2 or > v4.1 depending on how recent your linux kernel is. In the linux kernel, > client mounts start negotiating for v4.2 and work down to v4.1, v4.0, and > only as a last resort v3. NFSv3 client support in the linux kernel largely > exists at this point only because of the large number of legacy servers > still running that can't do anything higher than v3. The linux NFS > developers would drop the v3 support in a heartbeat if they could. > > IMO, providing it, and calling it maintained, only encourages people to > keep using a dead end solution. Anyone in favor of bringing back NFSv2, > SSHv1, or X10R4? No? I didn't think so. > > The recent issue[1] where someone built gnfs in glusterfs-7.0 on CentOS7 > strongly suggests to me that gnfs is not actually working well. Three years > of no maintenance seems to have taken its toll. > > Other people are more than welcome to build their own packages from the > src.rpms and/or tarballs that are available from gluster — and support > them. It's still in the source and there are no plans to remove it. (Unlike > most of the other deprecated features which were recently removed in > glusterfs-7.) > > > > [1] https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs/issues/764 > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 5:31 AM Amar Tumballi <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> As per the discussion on https://review.gluster.org/23645, recently we >> changed the status of gNFS (gluster's native NFSv3 support) feature to >> 'Depricated / Orphan' state. (ref: >> https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs/blob/master/MAINTAINERS#L185..L189). >> With this email, I am proposing to change the status again to 'Odd Fixes' >> (ref: https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs/blob/master/MAINTAINERS#L22) >> >> TL;DR; >> >> I understand the current maintainers are not able to focus on maintaining >> it as the focus of the project, as earlier described, is keeping >> NFS-Ganesha based integration with glusterfs. But, I am volunteering along >> with Xie Changlong (currently working at Chinamobile), to keep the feature >> running as it used to in previous versions. Hence the status of 'Odd >> Fixes'. >> >> Before sending the patch to make these changes, I am proposing it here >> now, as gNFS is not even shipped with latest glusterfs-7.0 releases. I have >> heard from some users that it was working great for them with earlier >> releases, as all they wanted was NFS v3 support, and not much of features >> from gNFS. Also note that, even though the packages are not built, none of >> the regression tests using gNFS are stopped with latest master, so it is >> working same from at least last 2 years. >> >> I request the package maintainers to please add '--with gnfs' (or >> --enable-gnfs) back to their release script through this email, so those >> users wanting to use gNFS happily can continue to use it. Also points to >> users/admins is that, the status is 'Odd Fixes', so don't expect any >> 'enhancements' on the features provided by gNFS. >> >> Happy to hear feedback, if any. >> >> Regards, >> Amar >> >> _______________________________________________ >> maintainers mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers >> >
_______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
