Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 15:46:31 +0100 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: Joel Dahl <joel@FreeBSD.org> Cc: doc-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-doc@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: www/en/projects/ideas index.sgml Message-ID: <20070217154631.v9su1z6uscsoggsk@webmail.leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <200702161712.l1GHCX81057433@repoman.freebsd.org> References: <200702161712.l1GHCX81057433@repoman.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Joel Dahl <joel@FreeBSD.org> (from Fri, 16 Feb 2007 17:12:33 =20 +0000 (UTC)): > joel 2007-02-16 17:12:32 UTC > > FreeBSD doc repository > > Modified files: > en/projects/ideas index.sgml > Log: > Spring cleaning in preparation for Google SoC 2007. Remove the followin= g > projects (based on discussions with netchild and rwatson): > > - AutoFS: Adam Martin has been working on this since Google SoC 2006 and= it > looks like we will see an implementation announced soon. It's nearly committed it seems. So my suggestion was to strip it down =20 to a "zombie" (only the title, the person doing the work and a "nearly =20 committed/done" comment) until it is committed. I don't mind that it =20 is removed. If people think a zombie-entry would be better (can serve =20 as markting for the upcomming versions until something is written down =20 in the release notes) we can add it back. My personal color: I want Zombie items. > - Magic symlinks: Several implementations exists, so we don't need more > people looking at this right now. But we need people reviewing them and chosing the right one. So the =20 entry needs to be changed instead of removed. > - Tarfs: Eric Anderson is already working on this in p4. Zombie comment from above applies. > - ZFS: No need to have this here, pjd has been hacking on ZFS for FreeBS= D > for quite some time now. dito > - Cam layer locking: My understanding is that scottl is about to commit > his locking work to CVS soon. dito > - FPU subsystem overhaul: Not suitable as a Google SoC project. As other commented: please add back and add a sentence to the entire =20 list that SoC proposals for entries on the list which are already =20 taken by someone will not be accepted. If someone submits a proposal =20 regardless we already know something about the qualityof their work =20 (it's either not worth our time or we get a very well thought out =20 proposal about some stuff which exceets our current expectations). > - Linuxulator: We already have several committers (netchild, jkim, kib) > and past SoC students (Roman Divacky) working on this, so remove it > from the list. Please add it back. We are happy for every helping hand we can get =20 (the wiki lists enough stuff). There may be even work for the SoC, but =20 it needs to be a _very_ strong proposal to get a green light from us =20 people which work in this area. Feel free to add a sentence that it is =20 not suitable for the SoC. > - Process Checkpointing: Not suitable as a Google SoC project. I go with the opinion Robert has about this. > - Flight mode: Does not belong on the list. benjsc has implemented > this functionality (not yet committed though). AFAIR I had some concerns with this implementation (devices should be =20 powered down by the driver instead of just not configure them). =20 IIRnotC, zombie comment applies. > - NSS/LDAP/HESIOD/NIS/YP: Michael Bushkov did this as part of > Google SoC 2006 so this isn't suitable for Google SoC 2007. Not > committed yet. Dito. The automatic UID/GID entry needs updating. Someone posted on ports@ =20 about an implementation. Bye, Alexander. --=20 Surprise due today. Also the rent. http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID =3D B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID =3D 72077137
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070217154631.v9su1z6uscsoggsk>