On Fri, 2008-08-22 at 14:14 +0200, Julius Volz wrote: > Yes, starting from scratch on another port sounds like a good idea. > Losing sync ability totally isn't as bad as confusing an older kernel > with new messages, so I hope it's not necessary to keep the old > baggage around? I agree - having a new sync daemon which can deal with v6 entries aswell as v4 entries would be a good way to work; the legacy code can then be retired at a later date with minimal end-user impact. > Is there enough motivation for doing this though before having a > cleaned-up minimal v6 version without the sync daemon? This is where > I'm currently a bit stuck with... any help is appreciated :) Well, as someone else mentioned on lvs-users recently "I couldn't code my way out of a wet paper bag in C" so I'm not much help on that front, however I feel that getting the minimal working feature set going first and then adding the sync code later is probably a good way to proceed. This also gives us a development timeline that we can offer to interested parties, along the lines of: 2008-10 Minimal IPv6 functionality 2008-?? Full IPv6 functionality matching IPv4 features, no IPv6 sync 2009-?? Restructured sync daemon with full IPv4 and IPv6 support Horms, Joe - do you agree that this is a good idea? Graeme -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
