I don't use VRFs with Quagga. While I think it would be healthy for the platform to have support, I don't need it myself, so I have no vested interest in any particular outcome here.
On Jun 1, 2015, at 11:38 AM, Paul Jakma <p...@jakma.org> wrote: > On Mon, 1 Jun 2015, David Lamparter wrote: >> At least, I don't see anyone else trying to further discuss this. > > That's fine. > > Then I NACK and it doesn't go in. If that happens, then you cause a retroactive fork. That is, there are users of this code, and many more who have expressed strong interest. It will be out there, and it will be used, because nobody has a plausible alternative. And Quagga is not Linux- those "out-of-tree patches" will likely wind up with more maintainers and coders than vanilla. That's not a healthy outcome in the short term (though in the long term might lead to a reasonably healthy Quagga++ or whatever). I have tried to follow your argument. ISTM that one of your acceptable options is getting lost in the noise - that people acknowledge that taking this patchset may be problematic later. If nobody's willing to even go that far, then maybe the right thing to do is make a new branch, take the patches, make an alpha (not beta) release, and see what other patches come along in a few months. By then, the merits of the argument might well be a lot clearer, and if not, well, I think the writing is on the wall in that case anyway. /a _______________________________________________ Quagga-dev mailing list Quagga-dev@lists.quagga.net https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
