On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 17:09 +0200, Paul Millar wrote: > Hi Ben, > > Thanks for the update. > > On Friday 15 July 2011 16:32:41 Ben Hutchings wrote: > > No news. The question remains, what the cost may be to other NFS users. > > Certainly NFS v4.1 is not a minor change, and it adds a lot of new code > > to the nfs module. > > I guess the question is how do we go forward here? If the stumbling block is > the fear of breaking something, how do we assess the risk involved against > the > potential benefits? > > One way would be to simply test it: just roll out an updated kernel to sid. > This would allow people to complain if it breaks NFS support (if the code is > broken then it needs to be fixed and the sooner the better). > > Perhaps another approach would be to provide an additional kernel package > with > NFS v4.1 support built-in and ask for feedback from people (either directly > or > perhaps via popcon). If it helps, I can provide some tests against NFS v4.1 > and NFS v4.0 servers.
It's really too much trouble to do that sort of thing for every feature we might consider enabling. How about we start by enabling NFSv4.1 starting with release candidates for Linux 3.1, and see what feedback we get for that? > A third possibility would be to wait until other distros (e.g., RHEL) have > enabled NFS v4.1 support and see if there is a corresponding increase in NFS > support tickets. [...] As I said, RHEL 6 has it - but bug reports for RHEL 6 are mostly hidden. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Absolutum obsoletum. (If it works, it's out of date.) - Stafford Beer
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
