On 10/24/07, Derrick Brashear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > not everyone has VMS.
*nod*, although it has been documented in public (at least some of the pieces) for quite some time. It seems CMU takes a similar approach, and I suspect others out there have 'rolled their own'. From the 'me too's using vos release to handle versioning, it appears having a general system more widely available would scratch a real itch. > it has nothing to do with namespace management. > nothing is as easy as "vos release" to copy data around. > It has _everything_ to do with namespace management. In absence of better tools, people are using vos release to do just that. Note that vos release isn't a bad tool; it's just being stretched beyond its design because people need a way to do versioning of their namespaces. I think it would be very useful if someone had the time/energy to build a 'vms-lite' that people could adopt at their sites. That seems a more strategic direction than trying to extend RO capabilities. That may be more of an openafs-devel or AFS3-standardization discussion rather than openafs-info, though -- I don't know. I also realize that building something like that is non-trivial. If people are interested in doing that, though, it seems a widely-needed tool. Steven _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
