Return-Path: ffilzlnx@mindspring.com From: "Frank Filz" To: "'Boaz Harrosh'" , "'Anna Schumaker'" , "'Benjamin Coddington'" , "'Trond Myklebust'" Cc: "'Linux NFS Mailing List'" References: <54622ADF.4080807@Netapp.com> <546238D9.2030804@electrozaur.com> In-Reply-To: <546238D9.2030804@electrozaur.com> Subject: RE: mount default minor version behavior Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 11:19:40 -0800 Message-ID: <00ea01cffde4$71c65d70$55531850$@mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" List-ID: > > I don't think so. Right now users know that if they don't use a = minor > > version then they'll be getting a v4.0 mount. I think we should keep > > this behavior so we don't accidentally break people's configuration. > > >=20 > This would be inconsistent and there for unexpected. >=20 > What you suggest is: > * if user specifies no version then start with 4.1, work down to = supported > version > * if user specifies major=3D4 only try 4.0 > * if user specifies major.minor only try major.minor >=20 > I think a more expect behavior would be: > * if user specifies no version then start with 4.1, work down to = supported > version > * if user specifies major=3D4 start with 4.1 til 4.0 > * if user specifies major.minor only try major.minor >=20 > The preferred (implicit) minor is 1 in all cases >=20 > The question is did users of major=3D4 meant 4.0 and were lazy to type = ".0" > or did they mean "don't try 3 or 2" Have we always allowed specifying 4.0? Or was there a time when you = could only specify 4 (meaning 4.0)? If the latter, then backwards compatibility suggests 4 should mean 4.0. > Current system compatibility is already changing by moving all case 1 = above > from 4.0 to 4.1 by the next yum update. I think it would be reasonable = to also > change case 2. And have a consistent semantics. Frank