[quagga-dev 10860] Re: [PATCH 3/4] ospfd: ospfd-unnumbered-interface-support.patch

Alexis Rosen quagga-users at alexis.users.panix.com
Fri Oct 25 20:43:46 BST 2013

I have no dog in this fight (er, disagreement?) but ISTM that Jocke's patches have been in production for years on many many devices. IIRC, his use case is not the same as James', but still, that should be worth a lot, from the standpoint of wanting to avoid new instabilities, etc.

I can easily see how Jocke would be unwilling to invest even another second in this, as I've seen him try repeatedly over years to get his patches reviewed and merged, only to be ignored because the only maintainer was unavailable or to absorbed in higher-priority work. Perhaps that might change if there were a clear commitment to move forward, one way or the other. (And perhaps not, he'll speak for himself I'm sure.)


On Oct 25, 2013, at 1:20 PM, James Li <jli at cumulusnetworks.com> wrote:
> Hi list, please review the diff. We know one developer here will not review. Hopefully other developers will review and let's push this feature forward. After all, Quagga still does not have unnumbered interface support after so many years.
> Joakim, I'm afraid I cannot engage in another long discussion with you about your patch years ago. If you are up to it, you are welcome to bring an up-to-date version of your patch against the latest master, compile it, test it out, and send it out for review as a competing patch.
> If it works and is technically sound, I will be happy to support your patch and credit all this work to you. What I want is for unnumbered interface to be supported in Quagga.
> Before you do that, I will refrain from any further discussion about your patch.
> thanks,
> James
> On 10/25/13 12:27 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>> James Li <jli at cumulusnetworks.com> wrote on 2013/10/25 01:08:01:
>>> From: James Li <jli at cumulusnetworks.com>
>>> To: Joakim Tjernlund <joakim.tjernlund at transmode.se>,
>>> Cc: ayabaner at gmail.com, Dinesh G Dutt <ddutt at cumulusnetworks.com>,
>> quagga-dev at lists.quagga.net, sfeldma at cumulusnetworks.com,
>> shm at cumulusnetworks.com
>>> Date: 2013/10/25 01:08
>>> Subject: Re: [quagga-dev 10830] [PATCH 3/4] ospfd:
>> ospfd-unnumbered-interface-support.patch
>>> On 10/24/13 3:46 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>>>> James Li <jli at cumulusnetworks.com> wrote on 2013/10/24 23:31:48:
>>>>> Hi Jocke, I will send some design notes via another thread, and leave
>>>>> this one for code review.
>>>> Sorry but I will not review this big all in one patch, design notes or
>>>> not.
>>>> The little I saw reminded me of my patches I sent years ago(still in
>>>> patchwork).
>>>> You might want to take a look at these.
>>> This patch is centered around unnumbered interface support, and every
>>> line of change is an integral part of it. What can be pulled as separate
>>> patch has been, i.e. the ONLINK and new CLI command "ip ospf area ..."
>>> are 2 separate patches.
>> No, you can and should break it down into smaller logical pieces which
>> introduces the functionality stepwise. No patch can break the build
>> either.
>>> I don't know what's the history about your patch. Is it accepted and
>>> merged into master? If not, and if it's a few years old, then my
>>> understanding is it has expired. List masters please correct me if this
>>> (w.r.t expiration) is not the right understanding.
>> I have lots of patches in patchwork, several are still relevant.
>> Especially those that fix some bug. They may not apply anymore but the
>> problem is still there.
>> For a long time I tried really hard to get them applied but as Q was
>> unmaintained they got dropped on the floor. Now I just point out that
>> they are there for anyone who cares to look. Patchwork is basically a
>> goldmine
>> with stuff but you need to go through it carefully and ask questions.

More information about the Quagga-dev mailing list