[quagga-dev 10861] Re: [PATCH 3/4] ospfd: ospfd-unnumbered-interface-support.patch

Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernlund at transmode.se
Sat Oct 26 13:58:01 BST 2013

Alexis Rosen <quagga-users at alexis.users.panix.com> wrote on 2013/10/25 
> 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.

yes, several years on may hundreds of devices so I am fairly confident 
that they work.
Many of them needs polish to fit current quagga but they are a good 
starting point.

> 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.)

Exactly, I will not go over this again just to be ignored. Until I see 
some evidence that
current maintainers show some interest in what is already in patchwork I 
will not yet again
polish and resubmit for the nth time. I still think Quagga is half asleep 
and moving forward slowly.

James, as you will find out, there are few devs willing to review stuff 
and even fewer with commit privs.
Your "OSPFv2: Support for Unnumbered interface." has just one line 
describing it yet it
touches 12 files with over 200 additions.
I am sure that there is more going on in there than adding unnumbered I/F 
support, you are
mixing plain unnumbered ppp with unnumbered eth I/F and ONLINK.
What you did to ospf_zebra_add looks really dodgy and broken, the whole 
patch looks odd to say the least.

> /a
> 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 
> >>>>> this one for code review.
> >>>> Sorry but I will not review this big all in one patch, design notes 
> >>>> not.
> >>>> The little I saw reminded me of my patches I sent years ago(still 
> >>>> patchwork).
> >>>> You might want to take a look at these.
> >>>> 
> >>> This patch is centered around unnumbered interface support, and 
> >>> line of change is an integral part of it. What can be pulled as 
> >>> 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 
> >> 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 
> >>> (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 
> >> 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