sure, just let me know how to send it in.
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Edison Su <edison...@citrix.com> wrote: > 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
