[quagga-dev 10864] Re: [PATCH 3/4] ospfd: ospfd-unnumbered-interface-support.patch

Joakim Tjernlund 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, 
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.
> >
> 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. 
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.
> 
> 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 
anything into
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 
stuff
> > 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, 
numbered I/F
> > 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 
whole
> > 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 
review
this.

 Jocke




More information about the Quagga-dev mailing list