[dev] [FRR TSC] Package Discussion (Doodle for times)

Donald Sharp sharpd at cumulusnetworks.com
Mon May 29 14:29:44 EDT 2017


So I specifically asked for the meeting last week so that the
interested parties could hammer out an initial agreement( or to refine
their arguments ) for the TSC to help minimize the time in the
meeting..  Mainly because I wanted to avoid getting into the meeting
and spending most of it on this issue.

donald

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Martin Winter
<mwinter at opensourcerouting.org> wrote:
> On 25 May 2017, at 4:25, Donald Sharp wrote:
>
>> So do you want to have the meeting to discuss the issue or not?
>
>
> Personally, I don’t see this to get us anywhere moving forward
> (Moving forward, as defined to come to an agreement of one of the
> 3 choices listed below).
>
> I do believe that you raised some technical concerns and you are
> pretty solid in your believe of them and they are different to
> my views (and I’m pretty solid in believing in them).
> Just to be clear: I don’t blame the holdout on you - I highly appreciate
> your views, but I believe the only way forward is by getting more
> people to chime in (preferably after they spent time investigating
> it)
>
> So unless we either get either more people involved, I do believe
> forcing this to the TSC will get us a decision and I would love to
> see if the TSC process actuality holds up in practice as defined.
>
> If you see any better way to actually get this resolved, then do
> please explain. My preference is to get this resolved one way or
> another ASAP.
> Until this is resolved I see little chance to get any other packages
> built for FRR (I agree that they should have at least the same look
> and feel) and I would prefer to get packages for 3.0 and Debian
> /FreeBSD in there VERY soon.
>
> Or did I completely miss the reason why we would have a meeting?
>
> - Martin
>
>
>
>> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Martin Winter
>> <mwinter at opensourcerouting.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ok, there seems to be some serious lack of interest.
>>>
>>> Only got response from David and “Robot” (supposedly Donald?).
>>> (and Jafar saying that he doesn’t have time)
>>>
>>> Not sure how to proceed, so here is my rant:
>>>
>>> I’m thinking about just closing the Redhat Package PR (not merging,
>>> just close) and someone else can address it again in maybe 6 months
>>> or whenever there is any interest at all.
>>>
>>> I was really hoping to get something in - maybe not perfect, but at
>>> least a start and everyone would be welcome to improve it afterwards
>>> with PRs on top of the base.
>>> The PR doesn’t break anything existing (current packages fail on all
>>> OS for me, so I’m not building any RH packages at this time). So I think
>>> it’s better than what we have now and it doesn’t break anything existing.
>>> Based on this, my view would be to get it in.
>>>
>>> But it seems the discussion goes down the rathole on how to have all
>>> perfect back to 2.0 release and rather have nothing instead of this.
>>> There is very little technical feedback (Donald provided some and I
>>> thank him for this - even if he has different views, I highly
>>> appreciate them. The issue here is NOT the fault of Donald, but
>>> the lack of feedback from just about everyone else. It just caused a
>>> “standstill” as Donald and I have different personal views on some of
>>> the technical points. But I think a 3rd/4th opinion could have solved
>>> this very easily)
>>>
>>> Now from me pushing the long overdue decision, the whole things seems
>>> to derail on how to get packages into distro’s. This is secondary to me
>>> as they always lag far behind and I think there is no way around
>>> providing up-to-date packages directly like most other projects do.
>>>
>>> </rant>
>>>
>>> Steps forward:
>>>
>>> I formally ask this now to be moved to the TSC for a vote on how
>>> to move forward (as our charters outline). I want an agreement to
>>> either
>>>  - Close (abandon) the PR without merging
>>>  - Accept the PR as it is
>>>  - Clear indication of what is missing/broken and required to
>>>     be fixed for it to be accepted.
>>>
>>> Let’s see how our TSC process works…
>>>
>>> - Martin
>>>
>>>
>>> On 23 May 2017, at 8:56, Martin Winter wrote:
>>>
>>>> https://doodle.com/poll/5bx4c7krsb3xctxu
>>>>
>>>> Pick your times if you want to be part of the discussion…
>>>>
>>>> - Martin
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> TSC mailing list
>>> TSC at lists.frrouting.org
>>> https://lists.frrouting.org/listinfo/tsc



More information about the dev mailing list