On Jan 23, 2013, at 16:23 , Steve Simmons <s...@umich.edu> wrote: > > On Dec 31, 2012, at 3:25 PM, Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote: > >> Stephan Wiesand <stephan.wies...@desy.de> writes: >> >>> I agree. Reducing the number of optional features is good, but such a >>> change shouldn't happen in the stable release series - unless there are >>> no doubts that it will just work for everyone, and it doesn't introduce >>> any compatibility issues. Turning on supergroups by default is very >>> unlikely to happen on 1.6.x from my point of view. >> >> Definitely agreed. This is the sort of thing that should be done for a >> major release. > > We use and love supergroups here, but I agree - if the default were to have > changed, it should have been at the 1.6 release. I know it's a bit early to > talk about 1.8, but if anybody is developing a feature release list, > supergroups ought to be on it. > > For what it's worth, our 1.4.X pts servers have run with significant use of > supergroups for years without crashing. So at least on Linux, the code seems > pretty stable.
Were they amd64? -- Stephan Wiesand DESY - DV - Platanenallee 6 15732 Zeuthen, Germany _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list OpenAFS-devel@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
