[Quagga-users 28] Re: so...

Gilad Arnold gilad.arnold at terayon.com
Sun Aug 3 13:44:00 IST 2003

Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:

> I see the quagga project highly equivalent to linux kernel. In fact you need
> people that know the various hw platforms quagga runs on. Kunihiro always spoke
> about patches not tested on other hw then the submitters'. Though I doubt the
> argument a bit, there is _some_ truth in it, namely the project needs a
> diversification (does this word exist? I'm no native) into:
> 1) platform independant code 
> 2) architecture specific "glue code"
> throughout all the daemons. This would imply you need people for every arch and
> people for independant parts.
> Your thoughts?

Nice thinking, although I believe is hard to employ: assigning 
committers (I prefer "reviewers", more democratic IMO) to components is 
rather easy; however, assigning responsibilities for architecture, 
keeping in mind that such people must actually be reponsible to certify 
that every committed change is working with their platform, implies that 
(1) these people are do-it-all experts wrt zebra (oops, quagga!), and 
(2) they'll have loads of work to do -- they must approve every change 
that happens anywhere in the code, namely each and every patch. 
Considering the fact that some platforms are quite singular, let alone 
some platforms are inconsistent (e.g. you may say Linux, while referring 
to some distro patched kernel, while in fact it isn't necessarily the 
same on others), this is quite complicated.

What would I suggest? IMO, the majority of patches to quagga won't carry 
any platform-dependent properties: most of what we've seen so far deals 
with logic/algorithmic tuning, user interface, and *nix-common 
characteristics. Furthermore, it seems that platform-dependent patches 
would normally happen around (1) zebra-daemon kernel API 
(rt_something.c, if_something.c, ...), or (2) the automake / autoconf / 
build environment. Hence, I believe that component-oriented reviewers 
(and the patch authors themselves) can indicate quite easily whether or 
not a patch requires cross-platform testing. AFAICT, in most cases it 

Your call?

More information about the Quagga-users mailing list