On 9/27/2012 3:06 PM, [email protected] wrote: > The point of this email is that I hope the Elders and Gatekeepers *do* > know that they're appreciated, even if it's not voiced often. The fact > that OpenAFS is still "alive and kickin'" is proof to your skill and > tenacity. Well done.
Thank you. [...] > That said, (and realize that I'm talking out of my *extreme* ignorance > here) if backwards compatibility with the older protocol spec is what is > holding us (the community) back from moving forward with the > much-desired new features which would make OpenAFS be taken seriously > again (strong encryption and IPv6 being just the two that pop into my > head at the moment), maybe we should think about this.... what about > asking IBM about their current feelings? It's not clear below whether > IBM's professed desire for backwards compatibility is 12-years old, or > current. Backward compatibility is a requirement for the entire community. The only criteria that is specific to IBM is that we cannot turn off older RPCs for which there already are replacements and we cannot completely get rid of rxkad or kaserver from the code base. There are also some implications for the rx transport. Any existing cell administrator is going to want backward compatibility. When a file server is upgraded you do not want to have to upgrade clients that you do not control and you do not want clients newer than your file server to experience data access problems. Cell administrators still want the ability to run with mixed versions of file servers without a flag day. The primary impediment to moving forward is a lack of community funded development resources. There are very few tasks left which can be accomplished in just a week or two and the on-going maintenance expenses are substantial. Jeffrey Altman
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
