> Oh nice, I might have missed the mails. Do you mind sharing the plan for > 4.0? Any reason why you guys do not want to continue glusterd as > translator model? I don't understand why we are using the translator model in the first place. I guess it was to reuse rpc code. You should be able to shed more light here. A quick google search with "glusterd 2.0 gluster-users", gave me this http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/2014-September/018639.html. Interestingly you asked us to consider AFR/NSR for distributed configuration management, which lead to http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-devel/2014-November/042944.html This proposal didn't go in the expected direction. I don't want to get into "why not use translators" now. We are currently heading in the direction visible in the above threads. If glusterd can't be a translator anymore, so be it. _______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
