Re: [Gluster-devel] Proposal: GlusterFS Quattro

[Jeff Darcy]

> Given the background, it only makes sense to retain the guiding principles of
> the feedback, and reconcile the changes proposed to management layer in the
> two proposals and retain the scope of 4.x to management changes.

> Thoughts?

I think we need to take a more careful look at dependencies between various
items before we decide what should be in 4.0 vs. earlier/later.  For example,
several other features depend on being able to subdivide storage that the
user gives us into smaller units.  That feature itself depends on multiplexing
those smaller units (whether we call them s-bricks or something else) onto
fewer daemons/ports.  So which one is the 4.0 feature?  If we have a clear
idea of which parts are independent and which ones must be done sequentially,
then I think we'll be better able to "draw a line" which separates 3.x from
4.x at the most optimal point.