Could you send the patch to reviewboard, and remove the snapshot part?
> -----Original Message----- > From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadow...@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...@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
