On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 11:24 AM, John Mark Walker <johnmark@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- >> On 03/25/2013 12:44 PM, Alex Attarian wrote: >> If you disagree with the very idea of having glusterd, then *we have >> nothing to >> talk about*. If you appreciate the infrastructure it provides, if >> you want to >> make that infrastructure as robust and scalable and convenient to use >> as >> possible, then by all means share your ideas or opinions on ideas >> that have >> already been presented. The other users who have participated >> constructively >> don't deserve to be crowded out of the conversation > > > I would also point out that, as the community lead, I would very much welcome alternative solutions to be played out on gluster.org > > I don't think they'll be successful, but what do I know. I just want to make it clear that alternative solutions are welcome. If there's a subset of you that want to maintain a 2.x release, you're welcome to do so - and I will give you whatever tools you need to be successful. > > If you'd like to maintain 3.x releases sans glusterd, I welcome that activity as well. > > If you succeed, we all succeed. > > Thanks, > JM Alternatively, we can treat glusterfs as a standalone, with glusterd as an addon (call it gluster-keeper ;). gluster cli should generate volume spec files from templates and notifies glusterd optionally. -- -ab Imagination is more important than knowledge --Albert Einstein
