Future of RAIDFrame and Vinum (was: Future of RAIDFrame)
Alexander at Leidinger.net
Sun Jan 11 03:08:46 PST 2004
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 15:46:49 +1030
"Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <grog at freebsd.org> wrote:
> Hmm. I can't see why they have to disappear from the source tree, and
> I don't see why Scott or I should have to look the other way. I don't
> know about RAIDFrame, but Vinum still works for the most part:
> > In the p4 tree, we can easier add new talent to our developer force
> > and I am pretty sure that some sort of merry band of developers
> > would form around both RF and vinum there.
> OK, I'm not a fan of p4, but I suspect that's not the issue. This
> sounds like a way of suggesting "Let's do VinumNG and RFNG and get a
> whole lot of people involved". I couldn't agree more.
> > I'd say lets kick them both into perforce and let whoever wants
> > their hands have a go at them.
> For some definition of perforce, I'm all for it. Note that there's
> also an OS-independent mailing list (see
> http://www.auug.org.au/mailman/listinfo/vinum-devel for joining
I'm a little bit confused. I've read Pouls mail as an suggestion to
remove vinum from -current and let people modify it in the perforce
repository. If I got this wrong, please tell me and everything is fine,
but if I got it right, do you (Greg) agree to remove it from -current?
I will be available to get hired in April 2004.
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net
GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91 3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7
More information about the freebsd-current