[cmaster-next] stable/2.0 close-down
Hi everyone, I've just merged Renato's RIP & BGP cleanups, which came with a zebra namespace rework/cleanup. This was pretty much exactly at the limit of what I think was still acceptable for a "stable/" branch, but I'd like to progress clamping down on the "allowed impact" of changes. Donald & I are in agreement that, for "stable/2.0", there should be: - no new features - no reworks (Please voice your disagreement if you have any!) On the other hand, please *do* send: - bugfixes in general - bugfixes for regressions - build system fixes - documentation updates However, even bugfixes should hopefully get smaller and smaller now. We need to make sure the limes converges towards a release :) Cheers, -David
On 5 Dec 2016, at 7:55, David Lamparter wrote:
Hi everyone,
I've just merged Renato's RIP & BGP cleanups, which came with a zebra namespace rework/cleanup.
This was pretty much exactly at the limit of what I think was still acceptable for a "stable/" branch, but I'd like to progress clamping down on the "allowed impact" of changes.
Donald & I are in agreement that, for "stable/2.0", there should be: - no new features
I would really like to get the needed (small) changes added to be able to create snap packages. Waiting for Renato on the LDP issue/question on this… Not sure if this is looked as as a change (and if yes: everyone ok?) - Martin
- no reworks (Please voice your disagreement if you have any!)
On the other hand, please *do* send: - bugfixes in general - bugfixes for regressions - build system fixes - documentation updates
However, even bugfixes should hopefully get smaller and smaller now. We need to make sure the limes converges towards a release :)
Cheers,
-David
_______________________________________________ cmaster-next mailing list cmaster-next@lists.nox.tf https://lists.nox.tf/listinfo/cmaster-next
I am fine with this. David? donald On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 1:47 AM, Martin Winter <mwinter@opensourcerouting.org> wrote:
On 5 Dec 2016, at 7:55, David Lamparter wrote:
Hi everyone,
I've just merged Renato's RIP & BGP cleanups, which came with a zebra namespace rework/cleanup.
This was pretty much exactly at the limit of what I think was still acceptable for a "stable/" branch, but I'd like to progress clamping down on the "allowed impact" of changes.
Donald & I are in agreement that, for "stable/2.0", there should be: - no new features
I would really like to get the needed (small) changes added to be able to create snap packages. Waiting for Renato on the LDP issue/question on this…
Not sure if this is looked as as a change (and if yes: everyone ok?)
- Martin
- no reworks (Please voice your disagreement if you have any!)
On the other hand, please *do* send: - bugfixes in general - bugfixes for regressions - build system fixes - documentation updates
However, even bugfixes should hopefully get smaller and smaller now. We need to make sure the limes converges towards a release :)
Cheers,
-David
_______________________________________________ cmaster-next mailing list cmaster-next@lists.nox.tf https://lists.nox.tf/listinfo/cmaster-next
_______________________________________________ cmaster-next mailing list cmaster-next@lists.nox.tf https://lists.nox.tf/listinfo/cmaster-next
so what should patches go against now, 2.0 or master? On 12/7/2016 7:12 AM, Donald Sharp wrote:
I am fine with this. David?
donald
On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 1:47 AM, Martin Winter <mwinter@opensourcerouting.org> wrote:
On 5 Dec 2016, at 7:55, David Lamparter wrote:
Hi everyone,
I've just merged Renato's RIP & BGP cleanups, which came with a zebra namespace rework/cleanup.
This was pretty much exactly at the limit of what I think was still acceptable for a "stable/" branch, but I'd like to progress clamping down on the "allowed impact" of changes.
Donald & I are in agreement that, for "stable/2.0", there should be: - no new features I would really like to get the needed (small) changes added to be able to create snap packages. Waiting for Renato on the LDP issue/question on this…
Not sure if this is looked as as a change (and if yes: everyone ok?)
- Martin
- no reworks (Please voice your disagreement if you have any!)
On the other hand, please *do* send: - bugfixes in general - bugfixes for regressions - build system fixes - documentation updates
However, even bugfixes should hopefully get smaller and smaller now. We need to make sure the limes converges towards a release :)
Cheers,
-David
_______________________________________________ cmaster-next mailing list cmaster-next@lists.nox.tf https://lists.nox.tf/listinfo/cmaster-next
cmaster-next mailing list cmaster-next@lists.nox.tf https://lists.nox.tf/listinfo/cmaster-next
_______________________________________________ cmaster-next mailing list cmaster-next@lists.nox.tf https://lists.nox.tf/listinfo/cmaster-next
stable/2.0 if it's a bug fix master if new feature On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> wrote:
so what should patches go against now, 2.0 or master?
On 12/7/2016 7:12 AM, Donald Sharp wrote:
I am fine with this. David?
donald
On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 1:47 AM, Martin Winter <mwinter@opensourcerouting.org> wrote:
On 5 Dec 2016, at 7:55, David Lamparter wrote:
Hi everyone,
I've just merged Renato's RIP & BGP cleanups, which came with a zebra namespace rework/cleanup.
This was pretty much exactly at the limit of what I think was still acceptable for a "stable/" branch, but I'd like to progress clamping down on the "allowed impact" of changes.
Donald & I are in agreement that, for "stable/2.0", there should be: - no new features I would really like to get the needed (small) changes added to be able to create snap packages. Waiting for Renato on the LDP issue/question on this…
Not sure if this is looked as as a change (and if yes: everyone ok?)
- Martin
- no reworks (Please voice your disagreement if you have any!)
On the other hand, please *do* send: - bugfixes in general - bugfixes for regressions - build system fixes - documentation updates
However, even bugfixes should hopefully get smaller and smaller now. We need to make sure the limes converges towards a release :)
Cheers,
-David
_______________________________________________ cmaster-next mailing list cmaster-next@lists.nox.tf https://lists.nox.tf/listinfo/cmaster-next
cmaster-next mailing list cmaster-next@lists.nox.tf https://lists.nox.tf/listinfo/cmaster-next
_______________________________________________ cmaster-next mailing list cmaster-next@lists.nox.tf https://lists.nox.tf/listinfo/cmaster-next
_______________________________________________ cmaster-next mailing list cmaster-next@lists.nox.tf https://lists.nox.tf/listinfo/cmaster-next
is vtysh not building a known issue? ../lib/.libs/libzebra.a(command.o):(.data.rel.local+0xf00): multiple definition of `banner_motd_file_cmd' vtysh_user.o:(.data.rel.local+0x0): first defined here ../lib/.libs/libzebra.a(if.o):(.data.rel.local+0x0): multiple definition of `interface_desc_cmd' vtysh.o:(.data.rel.local+0x19e0): first defined here ../lib/.libs/libzebra.a(if.o):(.data.rel.local+0x40): multiple definition of `no_interface_desc_cmd' vtysh.o:(.data.rel.local+0x1a20): first defined here ../lib/.libs/libzebra.a(routemap.o):(.data.rel.local+0x0): multiple definition of `route_map_cmd' vtysh.o:(.data.rel.local+0x1060): first defined here collect2: ld returned 1 exit status On 12/7/2016 12:10 PM, Donald Sharp wrote:
stable/2.0 if it's a bug fix
master if new feature
On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> wrote:
so what should patches go against now, 2.0 or master?
On 12/7/2016 7:12 AM, Donald Sharp wrote:
I am fine with this. David?
donald
On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 1:47 AM, Martin Winter <mwinter@opensourcerouting.org> wrote:
On 5 Dec 2016, at 7:55, David Lamparter wrote:
Hi everyone,
I've just merged Renato's RIP & BGP cleanups, which came with a zebra namespace rework/cleanup.
This was pretty much exactly at the limit of what I think was still acceptable for a "stable/" branch, but I'd like to progress clamping down on the "allowed impact" of changes.
Donald & I are in agreement that, for "stable/2.0", there should be: - no new features I would really like to get the needed (small) changes added to be able to create snap packages. Waiting for Renato on the LDP issue/question on this…
Not sure if this is looked as as a change (and if yes: everyone ok?)
- Martin
- no reworks (Please voice your disagreement if you have any!)
On the other hand, please *do* send: - bugfixes in general - bugfixes for regressions - build system fixes - documentation updates
However, even bugfixes should hopefully get smaller and smaller now. We need to make sure the limes converges towards a release :)
Cheers,
-David
_______________________________________________ cmaster-next mailing list cmaster-next@lists.nox.tf https://lists.nox.tf/listinfo/cmaster-next
cmaster-next mailing list cmaster-next@lists.nox.tf https://lists.nox.tf/listinfo/cmaster-next
cmaster-next mailing list cmaster-next@lists.nox.tf https://lists.nox.tf/listinfo/cmaster-next
_______________________________________________ cmaster-next mailing list cmaster-next@lists.nox.tf https://lists.nox.tf/listinfo/cmaster-next
Try a "make clean && make", might be resulting from leftover stale bits. -David On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 12:28:47PM -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
is vtysh not building a known issue?
../lib/.libs/libzebra.a(command.o):(.data.rel.local+0xf00): multiple definition of `banner_motd_file_cmd' vtysh_user.o:(.data.rel.local+0x0): first defined here ../lib/.libs/libzebra.a(if.o):(.data.rel.local+0x0): multiple definition of `interface_desc_cmd' vtysh.o:(.data.rel.local+0x19e0): first defined here ../lib/.libs/libzebra.a(if.o):(.data.rel.local+0x40): multiple definition of `no_interface_desc_cmd' vtysh.o:(.data.rel.local+0x1a20): first defined here ../lib/.libs/libzebra.a(routemap.o):(.data.rel.local+0x0): multiple definition of `route_map_cmd' vtysh.o:(.data.rel.local+0x1060): first defined here collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
On 12/7/2016 12:10 PM, Donald Sharp wrote:
stable/2.0 if it's a bug fix
master if new feature
On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> wrote:
so what should patches go against now, 2.0 or master?
On 12/7/2016 7:12 AM, Donald Sharp wrote:
I am fine with this. David?
donald
On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 1:47 AM, Martin Winter <mwinter@opensourcerouting.org> wrote:
On 5 Dec 2016, at 7:55, David Lamparter wrote:
Hi everyone,
I've just merged Renato's RIP & BGP cleanups, which came with a zebra namespace rework/cleanup.
This was pretty much exactly at the limit of what I think was still acceptable for a "stable/" branch, but I'd like to progress clamping down on the "allowed impact" of changes.
Donald & I are in agreement that, for "stable/2.0", there should be: - no new features I would really like to get the needed (small) changes added to be able to create snap packages. Waiting for Renato on the LDP issue/question on this…
Not sure if this is looked as as a change (and if yes: everyone ok?)
- Martin
- no reworks (Please voice your disagreement if you have any!)
On the other hand, please *do* send: - bugfixes in general - bugfixes for regressions - build system fixes - documentation updates
However, even bugfixes should hopefully get smaller and smaller now. We need to make sure the limes converges towards a release :)
Cheers,
-David
_______________________________________________ cmaster-next mailing list cmaster-next@lists.nox.tf https://lists.nox.tf/listinfo/cmaster-next
cmaster-next mailing list cmaster-next@lists.nox.tf https://lists.nox.tf/listinfo/cmaster-next
cmaster-next mailing list cmaster-next@lists.nox.tf https://lists.nox.tf/listinfo/cmaster-next
_______________________________________________ cmaster-next mailing list cmaster-next@lists.nox.tf https://lists.nox.tf/listinfo/cmaster-next
_______________________________________________ cmaster-next mailing list cmaster-next@lists.nox.tf https://lists.nox.tf/listinfo/cmaster-next
it fails with ./configure '--enable-static' '--disable-shared' (yes I did a rm -rf * ; git reset --hard ; ./bootstrap.sh) On 12/7/2016 12:38 PM, David Lamparter wrote:
Try a "make clean && make", might be resulting from leftover stale bits.
-David
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 12:28:47PM -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
is vtysh not building a known issue?
../lib/.libs/libzebra.a(command.o):(.data.rel.local+0xf00): multiple definition of `banner_motd_file_cmd' vtysh_user.o:(.data.rel.local+0x0): first defined here ../lib/.libs/libzebra.a(if.o):(.data.rel.local+0x0): multiple definition of `interface_desc_cmd' vtysh.o:(.data.rel.local+0x19e0): first defined here ../lib/.libs/libzebra.a(if.o):(.data.rel.local+0x40): multiple definition of `no_interface_desc_cmd' vtysh.o:(.data.rel.local+0x1a20): first defined here ../lib/.libs/libzebra.a(routemap.o):(.data.rel.local+0x0): multiple definition of `route_map_cmd' vtysh.o:(.data.rel.local+0x1060): first defined here collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
On 12/7/2016 12:10 PM, Donald Sharp wrote:
stable/2.0 if it's a bug fix
master if new feature
On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> wrote:
so what should patches go against now, 2.0 or master?
On 12/7/2016 7:12 AM, Donald Sharp wrote:
I am fine with this. David?
donald
On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 1:47 AM, Martin Winter <mwinter@opensourcerouting.org> wrote:
On 5 Dec 2016, at 7:55, David Lamparter wrote:
> Hi everyone, > > > I've just merged Renato's RIP & BGP cleanups, which came with a zebra > namespace rework/cleanup. > > This was pretty much exactly at the limit of what I think was still > acceptable for a "stable/" branch, but I'd like to progress clamping > down on the "allowed impact" of changes. > > Donald & I are in agreement that, for "stable/2.0", there should be: > - no new features I would really like to get the needed (small) changes added to be able to create snap packages. Waiting for Renato on the LDP issue/question on this…
Not sure if this is looked as as a change (and if yes: everyone ok?)
- Martin
> - no reworks > (Please voice your disagreement if you have any!) > > On the other hand, please *do* send: > - bugfixes in general > - bugfixes for regressions > - build system fixes > - documentation updates > > However, even bugfixes should hopefully get smaller and smaller now. We > need to make sure the limes converges towards a release :) > > Cheers, > > > -David > > _______________________________________________ > cmaster-next mailing list > cmaster-next@lists.nox.tf > https://lists.nox.tf/listinfo/cmaster-next _______________________________________________ cmaster-next mailing list cmaster-next@lists.nox.tf https://lists.nox.tf/listinfo/cmaster-next
cmaster-next mailing list cmaster-next@lists.nox.tf https://lists.nox.tf/listinfo/cmaster-next
cmaster-next mailing list cmaster-next@lists.nox.tf https://lists.nox.tf/listinfo/cmaster-next
_______________________________________________ cmaster-next mailing list cmaster-next@lists.nox.tf https://lists.nox.tf/listinfo/cmaster-next
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 07:12:45AM -0500, Donald Sharp wrote:
I am fine with this. David?
+1 -David
On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 1:47 AM, Martin Winter <mwinter@opensourcerouting.org> wrote:
On 5 Dec 2016, at 7:55, David Lamparter wrote:
Hi everyone,
I've just merged Renato's RIP & BGP cleanups, which came with a zebra namespace rework/cleanup.
This was pretty much exactly at the limit of what I think was still acceptable for a "stable/" branch, but I'd like to progress clamping down on the "allowed impact" of changes.
Donald & I are in agreement that, for "stable/2.0", there should be: - no new features
I would really like to get the needed (small) changes added to be able to create snap packages. Waiting for Renato on the LDP issue/question on this…
Not sure if this is looked as as a change (and if yes: everyone ok?)
- Martin
- no reworks (Please voice your disagreement if you have any!)
On the other hand, please *do* send: - bugfixes in general - bugfixes for regressions - build system fixes - documentation updates
However, even bugfixes should hopefully get smaller and smaller now. We need to make sure the limes converges towards a release :)
Cheers,
-David
_______________________________________________ cmaster-next mailing list cmaster-next@lists.nox.tf https://lists.nox.tf/listinfo/cmaster-next
_______________________________________________ cmaster-next mailing list cmaster-next@lists.nox.tf https://lists.nox.tf/listinfo/cmaster-next
_______________________________________________ cmaster-next mailing list cmaster-next@lists.nox.tf https://lists.nox.tf/listinfo/cmaster-next
participants (5)
-
David Lamparter -
David Lamparter -
Donald Sharp -
Lou Berger -
Martin Winter