On 07/31/2012 10:12 PM, David Nalley wrote:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl> wrote:
On 07/31/2012 09:48 PM, Marcus Sorensen wrote:
I'd be happy to try more if I had access to any contact info. As it
is, things in the surrounding code have changed enough that a bit of
re-factoring would need to be done even if there were permission.
My hunch is that unless he's switched roles, once the new version is
released he may come out of the woodwork wondering why that thing he
has a need for and developed is gone.
After writing the last RBD implementation this CLVM seems trivial.
A lot of code is still in there and looking at the commit where it got
removed it wont be that much work.
The problem (and I'm not a licensing expert) is that if I would implement
CLVM again it would look a lot like the original code, do we have to refer
to the old author for that?
I'm assuming here that we won't be able to contact the original author, but
we want to keep the CLVM functionality for 4.0.
Wido
Actually - you should compare the original patches, with what was reverted. :
http://bugs.cloudstack.org/browse/CS-10317
There was already something of a rewrite when Edison changed how some
of the storage was handled (which is the iteration that was pulled).
IANAL either, so I won't bother to even try and answer that question.
--David
Get it. I'll take a look at this. Imho it would be bad if we lost this
functionality in CS 4.0
We could have a lot of users out there who use CLVM and are not aware of
this being removed in the current code.
Wido
