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...@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:shadow...@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 <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: >> > On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Wido den Hollander <w...@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
