On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 17:26 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 05:19:57PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > > On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:52:59 -0500 > > "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 02:38:43PM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote: > > > > As of fedfs-utils-0.8.0, user space stores all NFS junction > > > > information in a single extended attribute: "trusted.junction.nfs". > > > > > > I suspect the break of backwards-compatibility is fine, but we should > > > add a note explaining it; would something like this be right?: > > > > > > This breaks compatibility with fedfs-utils versions before > > > 0.8.0. As fedfs-utils has not been widely distributed, we don't > > > believe this will affect anyone. > > > > > > (Cc'ing jlayton: does this cause a problem for whatever just went into > > > Fedora?) > > > > > > > Also cc'ing Ian, on whose shoulders I dumped the fedfs work... > > > > That stuff just went into Fedora rawhide, and as everyone knows (or > > should) -- rawhide eats babies. At this point I don't think there's any > > need to worry about compatibility issues. > > OK, thanks. > > (Chuck, that's the more important question to me than whether we declare > done or not: if it's alpha-quality code but somebody nevertheless > manages to get a working setup out of it, we try to be nice to them and > not break that. If it's only been distributed in rawhide, and only a > little while, chances of that are very small, so fine.) Yeah, alpha stage development shouldn't be constrained by backward compatibly concerns. Of course a heads up to users is good too. Ian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
