Re: cvs commit: www/en/projects/ideas index.sgml
Quoting Joel Dahl <joel_at_FreeBSD.org> (from Fri, 16 Feb 2007 17:12:33
> joel 2007-02-16 17:12:32 UTC
> FreeBSD doc repository
> Modified files:
> en/projects/ideas index.sgml
> Spring cleaning in preparation for Google SoC 2007. Remove the following
> projects (based on discussions with netchild and rwatson):
> - AutoFS: Adam Martin has been working on this since Google SoC 2006 and it
> looks like we will see an implementation announced soon.
It's nearly committed it seems. So my suggestion was to strip it down
to a "zombie" (only the title, the person doing the work and a "nearly
committed/done" comment) until it is committed. I don't mind that it
is removed. If people think a zombie-entry would be better (can serve
as markting for the upcomming versions until something is written down
in the release notes) we can add it back.
My personal color: I want Zombie items.
> - Magic symlinks: Several implementations exists, so we don't need more
> people looking at this right now.
But we need people reviewing them and chosing the right one. So the
entry needs to be changed instead of removed.
> - Tarfs: Eric Anderson is already working on this in p4.
Zombie comment from above applies.
> - ZFS: No need to have this here, pjd has been hacking on ZFS for FreeBSD
> for quite some time now.
> - Cam layer locking: My understanding is that scottl is about to commit
> his locking work to CVS soon.
> - FPU subsystem overhaul: Not suitable as a Google SoC project.
As other commented: please add back and add a sentence to the entire
list that SoC proposals for entries on the list which are already
taken by someone will not be accepted. If someone submits a proposal
regardless we already know something about the qualityof their work
(it's either not worth our time or we get a very well thought out
proposal about some stuff which exceets our current expectations).
> - Linuxulator: We already have several committers (netchild, jkim, kib)
> and past SoC students (Roman Divacky) working on this, so remove it
> from the list.
Please add it back. We are happy for every helping hand we can get
(the wiki lists enough stuff). There may be even work for the SoC, but
it needs to be a _very_ strong proposal to get a green light from us
people which work in this area. Feel free to add a sentence that it is
not suitable for the SoC.
> - Process Checkpointing: Not suitable as a Google SoC project.
I go with the opinion Robert has about this.
> - Flight mode: Does not belong on the list. benjsc has implemented
> this functionality (not yet committed though).
AFAIR I had some concerns with this implementation (devices should be
powered down by the driver instead of just not configure them).
IIRnotC, zombie comment applies.
> - NSS/LDAP/HESIOD/NIS/YP: Michael Bushkov did this as part of
> Google SoC 2006 so this isn't suitable for Google SoC 2007. Not
> committed yet.
The automatic UID/GID entry needs updating. Someone posted on ports_at_
about an implementation.
Surprise due today. Also the rent.
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander _at_ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7
http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild _at_ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137
Received on Sat Feb 17 2007 - 14:46:39 UTC