incubator-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 22:08:49 GMT
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
  • Unnamed multipart/mixed (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message