Hi Steve, On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Steve Salevan <steve@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 10:38 PM, "S.Çağlar Onur" <caglar@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hey Steve, >> >> On Aug 24, 2012, at 8:42 PM, Steve Salevan wrote: >> >> > Hey guys, >> > I apologize for being a bit out of the loop over the past few weeks, but >> > I wanted to drop in with a bang with my first func-related RFC. I've spent >> > a fair bit of time recently thinking about where next to take Func, as >> > development has stalled, but it has a wide array of users, almost all of >> > whom have experience in hacking it into submission. >> > >> > If there's anything that I've learned about systems management software >> > in my experience, hacking like this is in its very nature, and the more of >> > it that happens in the upstream community, the more capable the tool ends up >> > becoming. As the project's new maintainer, my first goal is to get these >> > sorts of commits going again, to start a flow of project improvements that >> > fundamentally round out in a better tool for all of us. Towards this end, >> > it occurs to me that it's pretty damn hard to contribute to Func, as e-mail >> > patch submission is a bit awkward and not very conducive to the sorts of >> > technical discussions we should be having when new code is presented. >> > >> > Thus, for my first move, I'm thinking about moving Func to github, as >> > that pull request feature of theirs makes upstream interaction a fair bit >> > simpler and allows us to conduct code reviews, which will help us keep the >> > code tight going out. My second thought is that it's about time we brought >> > you guys into the fold as committers if you've spent serious time improving >> > Func, so if you've submitted several substantial patches/pull requests, you >> > will gain commit access. >> >> That sounds like a great idea. >> >> >> > Finally, to get project development going, I've found that setting a >> > roadmap with goals helps drive development, so here's a rough draft of what >> > I'm thinking about feature-wise for Func 0.30, alongside their respective >> > priorities (0==highest): >> > >> > 0 - Improve client-side daemon stability >> >> Agreed, we run monit just for that reason :) > > > Nice! Monit has some godlike powers, we use it out here for much the same. > In fact, that initscript change was our attempt to make it a bit more stable > under monit, we found that the process table grep would often catch the grep > itself. > >> >> > 0 - Prevent forks from listening on :51234 >> > 1 - Improve forking system, prevent zombie fork processes >> >> That would be great, though 2c616830 introduced a workaround for that >> problem. At least for me, func no longer keeps zombie processes around. > > > That, sir, is a solid commit, well played. Our code is a few clicks younger > than that, so I'm going to advance tomorrow and see where it takes us, thank > you for the awesome. :) Enjoy :) >> >> > 1 - Make certmaster daemon more stable, and fix bug which causes it to >> > issue malformed certs >> > 2 - Improve delegation parallelism >> > >> > If you have any ideas for the roadmap, and/or would be interested in >> > taking ownership in something, let me know, as open discussions like this >> > will drive Func going forward, and I can promise beer and committer status >> > :) >> >> Maybe IPv6 support and dynamic module loading can be added to the list. >> Also I think it would be helpful to everyone if you release a tag a new >> version as "git diff --stat v0.28" shows a enormous amount of changes. > > > LOL that number is staggering, and your suggestion is a good one. I've > created a v0.29 tag to version the current state of the repository, and from > here we can begin working on v0.30 if that's cool. > > Thanks for your hard work on Func so far, I'm looking forward to our future > collaboration! I think we have a little problem there. I'm seeing that you already created two tags v0.29 and v0.30 without updating unc.spec file with new version # and a brief change log. I'm not sure how to play there but I think we can either delete tag/tags and re-create them with the updated spec file or we can create a new one called v0.31. >> >> > Thanks much for the read, let me know what you think about all this, and >> > have a great weekend! >> > -- >> > Steve Salevan >> > steve@xxxxxxxxxx >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > func mailing list >> > func@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> > https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/func >> >> Cheers, >> -- >> S.Çağlar Onur <caglar@xxxxxxxx> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> func mailing list >> func@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/func > > > -- > Steve Salevan > steve@xxxxxxxxxx > > > _______________________________________________ > func mailing list > func@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/func > Cheers, -- S.Çağlar Onur <caglar@xxxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ func mailing list func@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/func
