I agree with Lou and Olivier, being on both sides of the issue. donald
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Lou Berger <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree with Olivier's sentiments. It would be good to figure out how to > get patches/new features out faster... > > Lou > > On 4/22/2016 12:36 PM, Olivier Dugeon wrote: > > Donald, > > > > I understand. But, the first time I proposed my patches was in July > > 2014 (almost 2 years). That's very long to integrate a patches. > > OK. there will be some code reviews, and I could not work on it as > > many as I would that's slower the process a bit more. > > But, this is the third time I miss the integration window. Each time > > it needs more effort to adapt my patches to the new release. > > > > Feng Lu made a first review, Paul take the floor and made another > > review + some modification. The code has been intensively tested > > against Cisco and Juniper routers without any problem including long > > run (several months). Note also that TE neither break routing nor SPF > > computation. It is pure LSA/LSP opaque information exchange between > > ISIS and OSPF. > > > > In addition, we have other patches (BGP-LS) and we work on new Segment > > Routing that needs these set of patches integrated as soon as possible. > > > > Waiting again is a bit discouraging contributors :-( > > > > Regards > > > > Olivier > > > > Le 22/04/2016 18:26, Donald Sharp a écrit : > >> Olivier - > >> > >> There are allot of patches in front of the Traffic Engineering at > >> this point. Unfortunately this is going slower than one would hope > >> > >> donald > >> > >> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Olivier Dugeon > >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> > >> Hello Donald, Paul > >> > >> What's about the Traffic Engineering patches I just update and > >> submitted today ? > >> > >> Paul create a volatile/lls-te branch to review and update my > >> original patches against 0.99.24.1. I continue to work with Paul > >> on that proposing some improvements and corrections. The last > >> version I sent today was the latest version of this branch update > >> to latest release. > >> > >> Can you add it to the proposed/8 branch too ? I think the review > >> could be quick as the delta with the volatile/lls-te is small. > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Olivier > >> > >> Le 22/04/2016 17:38, Donald Sharp a écrit : > >>> This has been asked a couple of times so let's get it out there: > >>> > >>> The current plan was to take the take-3 branch ( > >>> https://github.com/donaldsharp/quagga/tree/take-3 ) and move > >>> that into a proposed/8 branch. Paul and I are in discussions to > >>> do this: > >>> > >>> Current sticking points as I understand it: > >>> > >>> (A) Proper Attribution of some patches. Paul and I are > >>> discussing this and are attempting to work this out properly > >>> (B) route-map behavior after application ( Another email to be > >>> sent to discuss this ) > >>> (C) Additional commit commentary needs to be written for some > >>> patches > >>> (D) Some patches are a grab bag of issues and should be broken up. > >>> -> I've already done some of this but the amount of time > >>> to get this right is going to be huge. Paul indicated he was > >>> going to take an attempt at some of the more egregarious issues. > >>> > >>> Paul If I've missed anything let me know. > >>> > >>> donald > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Quagga-dev mailing list > >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > >>> https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev > >> > >> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Quagga-dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev > > >
_______________________________________________ Quagga-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
