> I've also gone one better than just advice - I've given up significant > portions of my limited spare time to audit and patch a not-insignificant > portion of the GlusterFS code, in order to deal with the stability issues I > and others were encountering. My patches were ignored, on the grounds that it > contained otherwise unobtrusive comments which were quite necessary to the > audit. Geoff, we really appreciate your efforts, both on the fronts of your patch submissions and for voicing your opinions freely. We also acknowledge the positive intentions behind this thread. As far as your patch submissions are concerned, there is probably a misunderstanding. Your patches were not ignored. We do value your efforts. The patches which you submitted, even at the time of your submission were not applicable to the codebase. Patch 1 (in glusterfsd.c) -- this file was reworked and almost rewritten from scratch to work as both client and server. Patch 2 (glusterfs-fuse/src/glusterfs.c) -- this module was reimplemented as a new translator (since a separate client was no more needed). Patch 3 (protocol.c) -- with the introduction of non blocking IO and binary protocol, nothing of this file remained. What I am hoping to convey is that, the reason your patches did not make it to the repository was because it needed significant reworking to even apply. I did indeed comment about code comments of the style /* FlawFinder: */ but then, that definitely was _not_ the reason they weren't included. Please understand that nothing was ignored intentionally. This being said, I can totally understand the efforts which you have been putting to maintain patchsets by yourself and keeping them up to date with the repository. I request you to resubmit them (with git format-patch) against the HEAD of the repository. Thanks, Avati
