On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 11:31:11PM -0500, Andy Isaacson wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 10:55:36PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > I fully agree that nbd-server needs quite a lot of work, and have
> > outlined what I plan to do with it[0]. Maybe your ideas aren't even far
> > from mine, in which case help (patches, ideas, suggestions, ...) would
> > be welcome. Forks aren't, though, because they tend to discourage
> > cooperation rather than encourage it. And hey, if you already saw what I
> > plan to do but think I'm braindead, tell me about it.
> >
> > [0] http://nbd.sf.net/roadmap.html
>
> In general I like the roadmap, and don't think you're braindead.
Good :-)
> I want to prototype some stuff in my own tree before trying to fit it
> into the main nbd tree.
That makes sense.
> I'm sorry that you think I'm promulgating a fork.
Well. Maybe I overreacted a bit, but you get the point, no?
> I prefer to think of it as a research prototype; I want to keep my
> code ASAP (as simple as possible) and try out a couple of performance
> ideas. If they prove to be useful I don't see any reason not to redo
> it in the main nbd tree.
OK.
> Of course the situation isn't the same, but consider Apache versus
> thttpd. There's nothing wrong with having multiple implementations that
> speak the same protocol.
Nah, of course not. But it'd be a shame to have multiple ok-working
implementations instead of one great and fast thing :-)
--
EARTH
smog | bricks
AIR -- mud -- FIRE
soda water | tequila
WATER
-- with thanks to fortune
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature