Simon Wilkinson wrote: > > Personally, I'm clean to avoid #ifdefs wherever possible. They > dramatically complicate the testing process, and mean that packagers > have to make decisions on behalf of end users. They're appropriate for > items in the development stream, where people may want to test one piece > of code, but not another, but I'm strongly opposed to large numbers of > --enable switches appearing in the production code.
There are certainly unimportant switches around, such as --enable-bitmap-later, but using object storage requires to move all volumes to new fileservers. Also it requires a new database instance ... and additional complexity. So I am quite sure that only a minority of the cells later will start using it. > > Also, it's vital that it's impossible to shoot yourself in the foot by > accidentally installing a non-rxosd server on a rxosd machine, or vice > versa. This means that even if you do end up using configure switches, > both versions have to equally aware of each other's data to correctly > preserve it. The current #ifdefs sometimes have #else branches. So it's guaranteed that on a partition which has volumes created by an OSD-fileserver a non-OSD-fileserver would not start. Current OpenAFS fileservers would start because they don't know about the difference! H. > > S. > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenAFS-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hartmut Reuter e-mail [email protected] phone +49-89-3299-1328 fax +49-89-3299-1301 RZG (Rechenzentrum Garching) web http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~hwr Computing Center of the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (MPG) and the Institut fuer Plasmaphysik (IPP) ----------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
