you're kinda preemting an announcement mail that I have in my outbound
queue ;) - well.
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 09:51:12PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > > > Then there are commits which are sane but I have not
> > > > seen them on the ML or any other discussion.
> > > > Is this the new maintainer model or some accident?
I've merged 2 branches and 1 single-commit; both of the branches have
(old) threads on the ML. I'm not aware of any negative feedback on
these patches that hasn't been discussed (the BGP multipath stuff had
some discussion, but in the end it seemed OK to merge).
A new maintainer model - well, I didn't feel the need to rediscuss these
branches, so, I guess I'm a bit more aggressive. We discussed this with
the maintainers and we think the inactivity and staleness of the master
branch is doing way more harm than more aggressive merging and maybe
having a broken patch once in a while.
(I did indeed make a mistake on the merges, with af56d40, which is a
duplicate of 2ea1ab1 - I'll revert one of them as soon as I figure which
The ISIS code submitted by Google was cleaned up by the OpenSouceRouting
people, in particular Avneesh Sachdev. He did a good job isolating out
all the non-isis changes so we have at least some transparency and
reviewability. About the remaining 2 bulk isisd changesets... TBFH I'd
very much welcome a complete rewrite, as broken as isisd is. The policy
on isisd is basically "accept everything".
On the other side, I'm currently looking at Euro-IX and Vyatta. The
latter I might be able to pick apart, but the former might end up being
merged in one giant batch; I'm nowhere near close to figuring out what
to do there. The only thing I'm sure on is that it _must_ be merged;
that came out pretty clear based off the feedback I've received at
RIPE64 from users. > > > This commit seems to be an amalgamation of some minor fixed and code
> > > tweaks, some work relevant the the netlink layer, and a massive chunk of
> > > ISIS fixed. Probably the minor fixes and the netlink stuff should have
> > > been separated out, but I'm ok about the idea of the quagga maintainers
> > > committing the isis code in bulk: the previous code was seriously broken.
> > > From what I understand, the new code is significantly less so.
> > Yes I quoted the wrong commit, sorry.
> > It should be http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/quagga.git/commit/?id=3cf6c2b4e43f44a977d218c96c26250654ae333e
> > Merge branch 'quagga' into google-bgp-multipath
> Ahh, the cgit web interface is broken, it shows the wrong diff!
> Could the Quagga web point to the other, native to git, web I/F instead:
Hm, it came up with an error for me. I guess this is the one: http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=quagga.git;a=commit;h=3cf6c2b4e43f44a977d218c96c26250654ae333e
(No clue about savannah mechanics here btw.)
The one you linked before (3cf6c2b) was a preparatory merge that Avneesh
made on his tree.