cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl>
Subject Re: re-implement clvm
Date Tue, 31 Jul 2012 20:30:28 GMT


On 07/31/2012 10:12 PM, David Nalley wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Wido den Hollander <wido@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

Mime
View raw message