[torquedev] [patch] bind to ip on multihomed pbs_servers
garrick at usc.edu
Tue Feb 12 10:07:28 MST 2008
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 05:13:05PM +0100, Adrian Knoth alleged:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 12:58:31PM -0800, Garrick Staples wrote:
> > > I'd say let it go into a regularly synced branch torque-ipv6.
> > Agreed. If you really want to do this, we'll branch trunk (again) get you
> > write access.
> I'm not sure if this (alone) would change anything. Matti already has
> his own repository (git, not subversion).
> It's probably one or two days of work to re-integrate the patch into a
> current branch. And then? Falling behind, again?
> He definitively needs support, has to negotiate how changes should be
> done, hints why things are implemented the way they are (instead of
> chasing the rationale through the code, which is time consuming)
> >From my point of view (absolutely unimportant, I'm external to the whole
> project), it could be better to bring it right to the trunk. This avoids
> multiple branches with all the conflicts, synchronization problems
> a.s.o. In addition, it forces every developer to work for the new
> (global) goal: clean, modern communication code.
> Nobody could write pbs_net_t anymore. That's an important question: is
> there consensus for such a leap, do other feel the same that things
> really need to be changed? It's your community decision ;)
> As mentioned earlier, I'd prefer a broken trunk for some weeks to the
> mess of parallel branches.
We can't break trunk for weeks at a time. It's just not feasible.
I'll branch trunk to an ipv6 branch and do the maintainence myself. I'll make
sure that it stays in sync with trunk. When the time comes, I'll merge it with
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.supercluster.org/pipermail/torquedev/attachments/20080212/4e828cab/attachment.bin
More information about the torquedev