From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Apr 8 01:56:10 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C83D16A481; Sun, 8 Apr 2007 01:56:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from csaba@beastie.creo.hu) Received: from beastie.creo.hu (www.creo.hu [217.113.62.14]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C006313C4BE; Sun, 8 Apr 2007 01:56:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from csaba@beastie.creo.hu) Received: from beastie.creo.hu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by beastie.creo.hu (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id l381gZY2096875 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 8 Apr 2007 03:42:35 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from csaba@beastie.creo.hu) Received: (from csaba@localhost) by beastie.creo.hu (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id l381gYb1096874; Sun, 8 Apr 2007 03:42:34 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from csaba) Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 03:42:34 +0200 From: Csaba Henk To: "Marc G. Fournier" Message-ID: <20070408014234.GP79199@beastie.creo.hu> References: <4746DA006C148BC0FF1241C6@ganymede.hub.org> <45CCECCB7ECB612F504211F3@ganymede.hub.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0.2 (beastie.creo.hu [127.0.0.1]); Sun, 08 Apr 2007 03:42:35 +0200 (CEST) Cc: Csaba Henk , freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: TDFS ... or other distributed file system technologies for FreeBSD? X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 01:56:10 -0000 On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 01:21:25PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > - --On Thursday, March 29, 2007 13:49:43 +0000 Csaba Henk > wrote: > > > So, whom to pester about getting fuse4bsd merged?... > > My question ... if this was added to the core system (or, rather, the > BSD/kernel module), if it something that you are willing/able to support if > there are any problems and/or ensure that bit rot doesn't set in? > > Basically, if it gets added, will it just have to be removed within a release > or two because it doesn't build/work anymore? :( I didn't mean I won't maintain (keep code in sync with the rest of the kernel, fix bugs, etc.). I just said I can't work on new features ATM. Csaba