On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:17:01PM -0600, Russell Cattelan wrote:
| Bill O'Donnell wrote:
| > On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 01:59:35AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
| > | On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 12:19:51AM -0600, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
| > | > commit 0335cb76aa3fa913a2164bc9b669e5aef9d56fa3
| > | > Author: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| > | > Date: Wed Dec 31 12:10:12 2008 +1100
| > | >
| > | > [XFS] Update maintainers
| > | >
| > | > New maintainer contact and new tree location.
| > | >
| > | > Reviewed-by: Bill O`Donnell <billodo@xxxxxxx>
| > | > Signed-off-by: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@xxxxxxx>
| > |
| > | Folks, it's pretty strange to change the maintainer of a project to
| > | a person who hasn't done a single commit yet, and without discussion
| > | with the community who has done almost all of the maintainer work
| > | for a long time. I think this should get a little more public
| > | discussion.
| > Hi Christoph,
| > As the original developer, and the organization that open-sourced XFS,
| > SGI obviously needs to continue in an active role with XFS. As a part of
| > our responsibility, we need to update the MAINTAINER file. The previously
| > listed contact, Tim Shimmin, is no longer with the company and SGI is
| > proposing my name as the maintainer contact point.
| > As maintainer, SGI wants to continue to work closely with the community,
| > as well as carrying out extensive QA, leveraging our extensive set of
| > platforms. We sincerely request your support and look forward to working
| > with you as XFS continues to improve.
| > Thanks-
| > Bill
| Thank you for carefully elaborating on SGI's continuing efforts to
| further expand XFS already rich and
| deep list of features and industry standard setting performance. It is
| now clear that SGI will continue to
| provide ground breaking storage technologies, unparalleled levels of
| innovation with a laser focus on
| Since it's release on March 30 2000 XFS has been fully embraced by the
| open source community providing
| a full 64bit file system on linux systems ranging from the desktop
| workstations to supercomputers. The XFS file system
| integrates volume management, guaranteed rate I/O, and journaling
| technology for fast, reliable recovery.
| File systems can be backed up while still in use, significantly reducing
| administrative overhead.
| XFS provides the foundation for CXFS, a no-compromise data sharing,
| enhanced workflow, and reduced
| costs in data-intensive environments. As the industry's fastest shared
| file system for storage area networks (SANs),
| it eliminates file duplication and the time it takes to move large
| files over networks.
| CXFS significantly boosts productivity where large files are shared by
| multiple processes in a work flow.
| CXFS, data-intensive projects take less time to complete at less cost
| and are easier to manage.
| deep enough yet?!
Maybe a bit too deep:/ Nice try, though ;)
| It isn't any big secret that that latest round of SGI layoffs has
| devastated the XFS team.
| It seems fair that SGI would engage in some open dialog with the open
| source community "that fully embraces XFS",
| especially give the current levels of "contributions" coming from the
| likes of Christoph, Dave, Eric etc.
| There have been several discussions over the past few weeks as to which
| source trees are considered "current"
| or official. At this that seems fairly clear:
| The question of exact maintainership for each tree is up in the air?
| Who will have commit access to each tree?
The SGI designated maintainer (billodo proposed) will have commit
access. Other XFS developers at SGI (as part of the SGI filesystem group)
may have commit responsibities. These developers include felixb and olaf.
| What is the review policy? who has approve/veto power?
Community review, with final approve/veto power by SGI XFS group.
| What about official pull requests, will this always be from who?
Pull requests will come from the XFS developers at SGI. As of now, they
include billodo, felixb, olaf.
| Online documentation? At this point oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs is severely
| out of date, it
| has not been updated in over a year. It still has all the valuable
| reference material, but at
| this point xfs.org is being updated with current status and developer
currently being discussed--- where to keep xfs.org? should it be mirrored?
should we move to a wiki format? where does the server update stand?
| ... more?
Absolutely! More suggestions encouraged ;)
| I sure everybody on the XFS team at SGI and the open source community
| look forward to
| the open and collaborative discussions to follow in this fully embraced
| open relationship. :-)