incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Edison Su <Edison...@citrix.com>
Subject RE: re-implement clvm
Date Tue, 31 Jul 2012 23:06:35 GMT
Could you send the patch to reviewboard, and remove the snapshot part?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadowsor@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 3:09 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: re-implement clvm
> 
> Here's the refactored patch. The CLVM stuff is basically a copy of the
> RBD additions; and the patch also includes the original changes to
> managesnapshot.sh, which is unmodified.
> 
> I'm personally more concerned about the core functionality at this
> point, I can go through and re-implement the snapshot stuff, but if
> the core stuff can't be pulled in due to licensing then it's not worth
> the trouble to redo the snapshotting. If there's anyone in a position
> of authority to address the licensing stuff any input would be
> appreciated.
> 
> Thanks,
> Marcus
> 
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Edison Su <Edison.su@citrix.com> wrote:
> > The most complicated part in rommer's patch is LVM snapshot. If
> snapshot support is not a must, then adding CLVM is simple as RBD.
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadowsor@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 1:33 PM
> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: re-implement clvm
> >>
> >> 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