xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [XFS updates] XFS development tree branch, for-linus, updated. v2.6.

To: xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [XFS updates] XFS development tree branch, for-linus, updated. v2.6.28-rc3-9167-g0335cb7
From: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 12:17:01 -0600
In-reply-to: <20090109215218.GB10221@xxxxxxx>
References: <200901090619.n096Jp20017008@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20090109065935.GA1600@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20090109215218.GB10221@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Macintosh/20070728)
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 hardware
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
excellence.

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?!

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:
http://xfs.org/index.php/Getting_the_latest_source_code
The question of exact maintainership for each tree is up in the air?

Who will have commit access to each tree?

What is the review policy? who has approve/veto power?

What about official pull requests, will this always be from who?

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
resources.

... more?


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. :-)

-Russell Cattelan





<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>