Jeffrey Altman wrote:
John Hascall wrote:
Which, coming back full circle, is why we seem to be stuck with
the icky extra-protocol hack of using afs-k5 vs afs.
This is a pointless discussion. We aren't going to break existing
deployments of AFS.
I found the discussion informative, in that it explains how certain design
decisions move us forward while maintaining the edict you so succinctly
state. The reasoning isn't always obvious to those of us who aren't deeply
involved in the process, but such discussions tend to boost confidence in
the OpenAFS project overall -- not insignificant considering some of us
have bet the enterprise on OpenAFS. I appreciate the thoughtful
contributions of the participants.
--
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] 919-445-9302 http://www.unc.edu/~utoddl /
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
