Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 23:06:42 -0500 From: Chris Csanady <ccsanady@bob.scl.ameslab.gov> To: jbryant@tfs.net Cc: tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert), freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Large scale code integrations (Was: Re: C2 Trusted FreeBSD?) Message-ID: <199710140406.XAA13105@bob.scl.ameslab.gov> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 13 Oct 1997 20:44:45 CDT." <199710140144.UAA02191@argus.tfs.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> code ought to be moved to a stacking layer, as well. Unfortunately, the >> FS framework has problems right now, and it's not terribly clear if they >> will ever be solved without someone on the core team doing the actual >> work, since the changes required are so large that only a core team member >> could do them in the face of the fear that much change generates. > >yes the changes would be large, and of course would require core team >coordination. Terry has actually done much of the work to get our FS framework into shape, it just has not been integrated because of its size and impact. I think Jordan was going to try to help get things started on this a while ago, but I don't remember exactly. I for one would really love to see a working stackable FS framework. Also the locking changes for NFS, etc.. I don't know if this sort of thing is typical for large changes in general, but it does worry me when contemplating them. There just seem to be things which can not really be broken up, yet still need doing. :\ What is the proper way to go about these, and still have something that can be integrated? Perhaps sometimes it would just be best give them a thorough once over, and bite the bullet. If current is not the right place for things such as this, what is? Perhaps put them in a seperate branch so that other people can test them, and not have it forgotten. Would it not be easier to maintain as well? For what its worth.. Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199710140406.XAA13105>