On 03/15/2011 05:58 AM, Matthew Jakeman wrote: > On Mon, 2011-03-14 at 21:04 -0700, Ben Greear wrote: >> On 03/14/2011 03:45 PM, Matthew Jakeman wrote: >>> Hi Ben, all, >>> >>> This is great. I have just had a look through the new documentation on >>> the wiki and there are some significant updates on there that should >>> make peoples introduction to XORP a lot easier. In particular the >>> updated documentation for writing a process that has updated the old >>> Makefile information to the latest scons processes (among other things). >>> This will be especially useful to people who haven't used XORP before as >>> it was one thing I struggled with a bit when first using XORP. >>> >>> Huge thanks to both yourself and Pierre for this. Myself and Pierre are >>> both working on the ECODE project from which this has come about and >>> it's good to see that it has already pushed something back into the >>> community. >> >> The documentation help is very useful and very welcome. >> >> I am also curious about the state of your xorp modifications. Are >> they still scheduled to be publicly released? If so, I'd like >> to try to figure out how to make them part of the official >> xorp tree. Perhaps somewhere in the contrib/ directory if >> it's not general purpose code. >> > > We are still working on our implementation and are hoping to release the > source code into the public domain at some point down the line. > > One problem we have is that because the async stuff Steven has > implemented was not originally in XORP we have implemented our prototype > using the original XORP code. This means that if we wanted to fully > integrate it into XORP properly, we will have the issue of porting the > code to the new style of coding.
This is exactly why you should merge your code early and often: Maybe he could have used your fixes, or vice versa..and either way, both of you might be better off. > We will be looking at this further down the line and depending on the > project time constraints, we will see if we can integrate it in a nice > manner within the XORP code tree as I believe it would be a nice > addition to have in there. Obviously it would be better overall for us > to release the code within XORP rather than releasing our branch > separately. > > We will be in touch a bit further down the line and let you know how we > progress with these issues. About the only guarantee is that the longer you wait, the more difficult the merge will be. But, it's not my decision, and I hope your plans work out fine regardless. Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear <[email protected]> Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com _______________________________________________ Xorp-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-hackers
