Re: FSFS successor ID design draft

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 03:25:18PM -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> > In reading through this, as well as the discussion in IRC, I'm once
> > again wondering why we're bolting this stuff onto the outside of FSFS
> > rather than rethinking the entire FS problem (along with things like
> > obliterate and move-to storage and ...).
>
> You and me both, brother.

I wanted to address this point briefly, not silently ignore it.

Yes, a new FS design could address the successors problem, and many
other problems, too.

I am not in the position to drive design discussion for an entirely new
FS design. If someone wants to do that, fine. I'd sure like to help out.

I want to try to get something working for FSFS because this is
much more likely to get done in time for 1.8. If this turns out to
be impossible, fair enough -- that means we'll have to tackle a new FS
design to fix this problem. But I am not yet convinced that it is impossible.
Received on 2011-09-01 00:42:47 CEST