From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Loic Dachary Subject: Re: civetweb upstream/downstream divergence Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 17:00:01 +0900 Message-ID: <56332381.4060204@dachary.org> References: <5631E4A5.9020003@suse.cz> <20151029225738.51b8b2e5@lembas.zaitcev.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="uq05oMCxnSXQtS0ljFrN3aheavoxLVGGK" Return-path: Received: from mail2.dachary.org ([91.121.57.175]:52312 "EHLO smtp.dmail.dachary.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758633AbbJ3IAG (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Oct 2015 04:00:06 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20151029225738.51b8b2e5@lembas.zaitcev.lan> Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Pete Zaitcev , Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub Cc: Nathan Cutler , ceph-devel This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --uq05oMCxnSXQtS0ljFrN3aheavoxLVGGK Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Pete, On 30/10/2015 13:57, Pete Zaitcev wrote: > On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 10:58:07 -0700 > Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub wrote: >=20 >> We should definitely do it. We're based off civetweb 1.6, and there >> was no official civetweb version for quite a while, but 1.7 was tagged= >> a few months ago. I made some effort and got most of our material >> changes upstream, however, there are some changes that might need some= >> more work before we can get them merged, or might not make complete >> sense at all. >=20 > I take it Nathan is volunteering to parse the delta into logical pieces= > and identify what upstream is willing to accept, right? I've discussed with Nathan about this general problem a few times. The is= sue is much less about volunteering and much more about how to track the = progress of the delta over time. > Dunno about SuSE, but as a Fedora packager I would prefer if we (Ceph) > talked upstream into making regular releases and then for us to stop > carrying it entirely. One less git submodule if nothing else. Right now we have no method. For the jerasure / gf-complete sub-modules, = I'm watching the delta and do the right thing but it's mostly an unwritte= n process: someone else would do it completely differently. For other Cep= h sub-modules I suppose each developer has his own way of dealing with th= e delta.I remember Sage recently proposed patches upstream for rocksdb bu= t I'm unaware of where or how. I would not be able to help him in any way= =2E And I don't think anyone could figure out exactly how to deal with th= e jerasure / gf-complete sub-modules either. Do you happen to know a project that is using submodules (or copies of pr= ojects instead of dependencies) and that is also well organized to track = the delta ? Cheers --=20 Lo=EFc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre --uq05oMCxnSXQtS0ljFrN3aheavoxLVGGK Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlYzI4EACgkQ8dLMyEl6F22UbgCfU75sBwHiLYwvbLvroD7/hhEB 1k0An1OspZ4Kq3HzBQegxzFsmBYjdt35 =6pgl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --uq05oMCxnSXQtS0ljFrN3aheavoxLVGGK--