On 03/24/2013 08:17 PM, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote: > I have the strong impression you are pressed to release something in a > timeline and for reasons currently untold. > What is the reason for this rush of features and increasing instability, nfs > with server-based replication and so on. All things that the original project > really never talked about. We're adding features primarily because there are people asking for them. No conspiracy theory is necessary. We're considering things that we wouldn't have before because more resources and a lot more users than we did before. > You would only do this if you had a clear time limit to reach some goal. If > your goal would be to make a well-defined, stable and long term GPL project > really nobody would ask questions like these. Not in the GPL part of the > software-engineering world. Really? Is that because GPL projects are notable for their focus and orderly progress toward a single goal at a time? Or is it because no GPL project has ever refactored, rewritten, or replaced a core component? Silly me, I thought open source was about, y'know, being open - to participation, to experimentation, to people getting involved and doing something instead of just ranting. Apparently you have a different perspective. FYI, this particular project (refactoring glusterd) is quite long term. It's to ensure that at some point in the future we can scale to clusters ten times larger than now, and support configurations ten times as complex because of features that are barely on the road map today. It would be a real shame if people were trying to deploy at that scale or use those other features but the management layer didn't give them the tools to make that work. It's called thinking ahead. If we were really as nefarious as you make us out to be, we wouldn't be having this discussion on a public list. We'd be having it behind closed doors within Red Hat, but that's not the way we operate. Instead, I posted this to a public list so people elsewhere in the community can be involved at the earliest possible point. It's sad that some people try to discourage such openness and thereby weaken the community. Sometimes the price of leaving the door open is that not everyone who walks through it is well intentioned, but we just have to deal with that as best we can.
