On 09/30/11 09:45 AM, Nico Williams wrote:
But adding sbm server support to a zone isn't a backport, it's a new
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Jeff Victor<jeff.j.vic...@gmail.com> wrote:
The general rule is "convince product management that there is a business
reason to invest the engineer(s) and it will get done."
IMO, for backports, the bar should be much higher. The vendor should
compute the cost of the backport *including* the cost of opportunity,
and including the further cost of opportunity involved in encouraging
more backports by the mere fact of having done one backport (if the
customer believes they can put off upgrading forever then the pressure
to backport more and more features will rise). If the value of doing
the backport *significantly* exceeds that cost, then, sure, do the
I'm sure we aren't the only site who has consolidated older fileservers
into zones and would like to use native services in those zones.
zones-discuss mailing list