On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> Horst von Brand wrote:
>
> > OK, OK, OK. It is by now abundantly clear that NFSv3 is a high-priority
> > item for lots of people out there. But just complaining about it not being
> > in the kernel just generates ill will.
>
> Think Alan has made that clear. The way I read things the nfsv2 stuff needs
> to be split out, into sets of small independent patches. This lets Alan
> audit and control any bad patches easily. The nfsv3 changes should not
> effect anything unless they are selected in the kernel build.
Trond has made it equally clear that he has no interest in revisiting the
entire tortuous process of stabilizing the client. I don't blame him.
Those of us who actually rely upon fast, reliable NFS know that it works
and works well. I'll wager to say that most (if not all) commercial
distributions will include Trond and D. Higgen's patches in the next
refresh. I won't try to second-guess Alan in his reticence, but do think
it's a shame these won't get into the base kernel.
Let me weigh in as being utterly opposed to any interim or piecemeal
adoption of either client or server patches. This would be foolish and
ten times more likely to break things.
Steve
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 15 2000 - 21:00:20 EST