From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wido den Hollander Subject: Re: civetweb upstream/downstream divergence Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 11:11:22 +0100 Message-ID: <5631F0CA.3010200@42on.com> References: <5631E4A5.9020003@suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from smtp02.mail.pcextreme.nl ([109.72.87.139]:45790 "EHLO smtp02.mail.pcextreme.nl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756845AbbJ2KLQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Oct 2015 06:11:16 -0400 In-Reply-To: <5631E4A5.9020003@suse.cz> Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Nathan Cutler , ceph-devel On 29-10-15 10:19, Nathan Cutler wrote: > Hi Ceph: > > The civetweb code in RGW is taken from https://github.com/ceph/civetweb/ > which is a fork of https://github.com/civetweb/civetweb. The last commit > to our fork took place on March 18. > > Upstream civetweb development has progressed ("This branch is 19 commits > ahead, 972 commits behind civetweb:master.") > > Are there plans to rebase to a newer upstream version or should we think > more in terms of backporting (to ceph/civetweb.git) from upstream > (civetweb/civetweb.git) when we need to fix bugs or add features? > I think it would be smart to keep tracking civetweb from upstream otherwise we forked Civetweb. We might run into some issues with Civetweb which we need to fix upstream, that's a lot easier if we are close to where upstream is. Wido > Thanks and regards >