Darren J Moffat wrote:
> Frank Batschulat (Home) wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 10:57:20 +0200, Darren J Moffat
>> <Darren.Moffat at Sun.COM> wrote:
>>
>>> I think this case needs a formal opinion. I'm derailing it an will
>>> happily provide the opinion text (as either majority or minority).
>>>
>>> Do other ARC members wish to vote now or when they see a draft
>>> opinion ?
>>
>> I'd hope and expect this opinion will contain a reasonable proposal
>> for the future how
>> the arc expects to deal with such situations in general.
>
> Not from me it won't. If you wish to provide such text I'd be happy
> to include it in the opinion for review.
>
>> sooner or later, psarc has to face the fact that old, dead, out of
>> development products
>> and features have to and will be EOF/EOF'ed, no matter if there is a
>> replacement or not.
>
> That is more of a business issue. The job of the ARC is to review the
> change to the architecture and if it feels necessary point out
> gaps/issues to the business side of the process. That is exactly what
> I'm doing here.
>
> There is a HUGE difference between wanting to EOF the particular
> implementation of a feature and no longer requiring the functionality
> at all.
>
> As I've already said I support the EOF of the CacheFS code base what I
> don't support is the fact that we have no equivalent for NFSv4 and
> CIFS and I believe that we need one (not least of which because there
> are competitive offerings).
>
I"d be willing to vote to approve now, provided the opinion states the
desire for a replacement that provides caching for NFSv4 at least (and
CIFS would indeed be a nice feature to have.) Perhaps this is a TCA.
I'm also happy to vote to approve if the opinion states the same thing
as a requirement (TCR) instead.
-- Garrett
