Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 18:12:28 -0700 From: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Future of RAIDFrame Message-ID: <4000A2FC.2040400@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20040111020459.5bbba56a@Magellan.Leidinger.net> References: <40007D14.6090205@freebsd.org> <3180.1073776377@critter.freebsd.dk> <20040111020459.5bbba56a@Magellan.Leidinger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alexander Leidinger wrote: > On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 00:12:57 +0100 > "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: > > >>As much as I would hate to see RF and Vinum disappar from our >>source tree, maybe what we need to do is to kick them both into >>"training-camp" in p4 while you and Greg look the other way. > > [...] > >>I'd say lets kick them both into perforce and let whoever wants >>their hands have a go at them. > > > RF isn't working today on -current, vinum is (please don't tell me > something else, I don't want the system under my desk stop running on a > vinum volume just because you say it has to :-)). Do you really want to > throw your axe at vinum while it's still alive? > > Bye, > Alexander. > Ok, stop right here. This is the third email so for that is attempting the debate the merits of one over the other. Spending time arguing that point is a waste of time. If working on RF is something that interests you, then show your support and say so. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4000A2FC.2040400>