[quagga-dev 10864] Re: [PATCH 3/4] ospfd: ospfd-unnumbered-interface-support.patch
joakim.tjernlund at transmode.se
Sat Oct 26 17:47:23 BST 2013
James Li <jli at cumulusnetworks.com> wrote on 2013/10/26 17:39:57:
> On 10/26/13 5:58 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > Alexis Rosen <quagga-users at alexis.users.panix.com> wrote on 2013/10/25
> > 21:43:46:
> >> 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,
> > use case is not the same as James', but still, that should be worth a
> > 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.
> If your patch is not in master, it's not. So you are basically using a
> private version of Quagga. No work can be done in master so that a
> private version won't be affected?
Of course I am using a private version, never could get all the patches I
needed into Q due to lack of maintenance.
What gave you the idea that no work could be done in master?
> >> 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.
> > that might change if there were a clear commitment to move forward,
> > 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
> > will not yet again
> > polish and resubmit for the nth time. I still think Quagga is half
> > and moving forward slowly.
> Again, I'm done discussing your patch that is not updated. I don't even
> know which patch you are talking about.
Wasn't talking about that "patch". Just how hard it has been to get
Q in the past and I not going to polish off missing pieces and adapt them
to current Q
without some evidence that they will go into Q in a timely fashion.
> > James, as you will find out, there are few devs willing to review
> > and even fewer with commit privs.
> ok, thanks for the heads up.
> > Your "OSPFv2: Support for Unnumbered interface." has just one line
> > describing it yet it
> > touches 12 files with over 200 additions.
> One line? I have sent a supporting document for those who want to read.
> > I am sure that there is more going on in there than adding un,
> > support, you are
> > mixing plain unnumbered ppp with unnumbered eth I/F and ONLINK.
> No, it's about unnumbered support in OSPF and Zebra, absolutely nothing
> else. It supports both serial interfaces and LAN interfaces used as PPP,
> which should be a requirement for any implementation attempts.
Like I figured then, it can be broken down into smaller pieces which are
much easier to review/understand.
> > What you did to ospf_zebra_add looks really dodgy and broken, the
> > patch looks odd to say the least.
> You have to be more specific. If you didn't review the diff, please
> don't comment.
Yet it was more specific that your patch description, see the point?
> Anyways, Joakim, I'm done with this thread. If you review, and have real
> review comments, I will happily discuss with you. But the current
> discussion is not productive and will not be continued from my side.
Naa, I don't have anything more to add. Good luck finding someone else
More information about the Quagga-dev