[cdwg] OpenSFS CDWG Call

[Jones, Peter A]

HI Cory

That was what I was initially attempting to do. The downside of this is
would be that there would be no way to provide any details about which
kernel version etc or any modifications that were needed. We could still
go down that route regardless. I’ll give it some more thought and let’s
close on it on the next CDWG call.

Peter

On 1/29/14, 9:54 PM, "Cory Spitz" <spitzcor at cray.com> wrote:

>Peter, I think that it looks fine.  Maybe one other suggestion might be to
>add "In-tree vanilla kernel (client)" as an option in addition to 'Other
>(please specify)'.  Either way, I think we'll get the info we want.
>
>-Cory
>
>On 1/29/14, 11:47 AM, "Jones, Peter A" <peter.a.jones at intel.com> wrote:
>
>>Here¹s the draft I mentioned on the call -
>>https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/P3HFY7R
>>
>>Cory, I tried to incorporate your feedback about the upstream Lustre
>>client in question 3 but it was only possible to add one option with free
>>text. Do you think that this wording is sufficiently clear?
>>
>>On 1/28/14, 7:33 PM, "Morrone, Chris"
>><morrone2 at llnl.gov<mailto:morrone2 at llnl.gov>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>This is a reminder that we will have a Community Development Working
>>Group (CDWG) call on Wednesday, January 29, at 9:00am PDT.
>>
>>Agenda:
>>
>>* Lustre 2.6 Development Update
>>* Open Discussion
>>
>>Call-in: 866-914-3976 (925-424-8105) Passcode: 534986#
>>
>>Regards,
>>Chris
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>cdwg mailing list
>>cdwg at lists.opensfs.org
>>http://lists.opensfs.org/listinfo.cgi/cdwg-opensfs.org
>