cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marcus Sorensen <shadow...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: re-implement clvm
Date Tue, 31 Jul 2012 20:33:18 GMT
Ok, so I've created a refactored patch that seems to work. It was
pretty much entirely the RBD additions that were blocking the original
from being rolled back in. If a developer would be willing to take on
the whole license issue and see this functionality put back in I'd
still be willing to pay half of the bounty ($400).  As the code looks,
the changes are fairly minor, and I'm not sure how novel you'd have to
get avoid the license issues (or that there's any easy alternative way
to change the code sufficiently)

On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 2:12 PM, David Nalley <david@gnsa.us> 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

Mime
View raw message