[quagga-dev 7756] Re: new dev model?

Stephen Hemminger shemminger at vyatta.com
Tue Feb 2 23:59:12 GMT 2010

On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 20:07:20 +0000 (UTC)
Chris Caputo <ccaputo at alt.net> wrote:

> Has any thought be given to the idea of having each daemon have a 
> maintainer which manages a per-daemon git tree, each of which acts as a 
> gateway for patches for the daemon they are responsible for.  Once a 
> maintainer approves of a patch, the patch heads to the master merger(s) 
> for inclusion in the main tree, with the maintainer's "Signed-off-by:" 
> stamp.  The master merger has less work to do, because they can tend to 
> trust their per-area maintainers to not be sending broken code up the 
> line.
> This would seem to me to be a way to be a reasonable way to spread out the 
> workload.  The linux folks follow a similar model, with Torvalds at the 
> top, and various lieutenants overseeing the different parts of the kernel 
> for which they have an expertise.
> Possible sub-areas, which could each have their own maintainer, could be:
>   build tools & lib & vtysh & watchquagga sub-dirs
>   zebra
>   bgpd
>   isisd
>   ospfd
>   ospf6d
>   ripd
>   ripngd
>   ...

The problem is lack of full-time maintainers and conflict between
production and development folks.  As a Linux kernel developer, I like
the sub-maintainer concept; but a project has to accept changes at full speed
(keep up with the fire hose). And sure there are problems that need redesign
and refactoring, but there is no reason to split off and go away to a 
developer branch, it is perfectly possible to slip stream in redesigns
incrementally. The three month cycle works out. With merge window in
the first month.

The bigger issue is the quagga community is small, and the number
of willing testers is small.


More information about the Quagga-dev mailing list