Hi Pete, On 30/10/2015 13:57, Pete Zaitcev wrote: > On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 10:58:07 -0700 > Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub <yehuda@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> 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. > > 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 issue 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 unwritten process: someone else would do it completely differently. For other Ceph sub-modules I suppose each developer has his own way of dealing with the delta.I remember Sage recently proposed patches upstream for rocksdb but I'm unaware of where or how. I would not be able to help him in any way. And I don't think anyone could figure out exactly how to deal with the jerasure / gf-complete sub-modules either. Do you happen to know a project that is using submodules (or copies of projects instead of dependencies) and that is also well organized to track the delta ? Cheers -- Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
