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 >> <olivier.dug...@orange.com <mailto:olivier.dug...@orange.com>> 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 >>> Quagga-dev@lists.quagga.net <mailto:Quagga-dev@lists.quagga.net> >>> https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Quagga-dev mailing list > Quagga-dev@lists.quagga.net > https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev _______________________________________________ Quagga-dev mailing list Quagga-dev@lists.quagga.net https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
