[quagga-dev 9678] Meta (was: Re: [PATCH RFC] OSPF vertices memory exhaustion)

David Lamparter equinox at opensourcerouting.org
Mon Aug 20 14:13:23 BST 2012

Ooooh, meta maintaining!

On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 09:07:44PM +0100, Paul Jakma wrote:
> It seems you didn't convince me this was wrong before. I've just gone 
> through the original bug and refreshed my understanding from scratch as to 
> why that was done as it is, and I still don't think it's wrong. Indeed, 
> I'm not convinced you understand why that code is the way it is (based 
> just on the commit comment, and my own refresh of the code, the blog 
> entry, and bug #330 - I havn't gone over earlier discussions). ;)
> Now, that's not meant as an insult, Just that my approach to maintenance 
> was that the maintainer should take a sceptical stance on contributions 
> and require that they come with convincing explanations as to what the 
> problem is, and why the submitted patch fixes it. Otherwise, I felt then, 
> we risked lots of pointless code churn from speculative or 
> not-fully-understood patches.
> That said, maintenance approach today may be different.

The approach I've been taking so far has been "merge by default".

However, this has caused a few bits here and there, in particular:
 - I've picked up Roman's CLI address parsing patch, only to notice on
   processing Juliusz' patch that Roman's patch partially breaks command
   line help/completion
 - Jorge's BGP cleanups first got two immediate fixups and now seem to
   be responsible for the assert I'm seeing.  The gain vs. regressions
   was a bit low on that series TBFH. (Sorry Jorge...)

I had hoped that picking up patches with regressions would be seldom
exceptions, this doesn't seem to hold.  Bit of a shoe in mouth moment
for me to be honest.

That said, I haven't given up on the approach yet.  I would like to take
this as an opportunity to mention that if anyone has been using master
as a "rolling release", now would be a good time to stop that.


The whole idea and enabling factor for the permissive merging approach
is that we have the OSR testing.  I fully expect that we'll find another
regression or two there.  If it turns out that permissive merging is
lowering the quality *too* much, we'll have to rethink this.

(This was also a big factor for me in picking up Joakim's OSPF changes.
For what I know, it might actually make the router melt -- I reviewed
and understood the patches, but I didn't prove them correct.)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 230 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.quagga.net/pipermail/quagga-dev/attachments/20120820/42dc69b8/attachment-0001.sig>

More information about the Quagga-dev mailing list