Subject: Re: [vserver] vserver git server and misc. thoughts
From: Herbert Poetzl <herbert@13thfloor.at>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 08:29:43 +0200

On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:35:16PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
> Hey all,
> 
> Would it be helpful if we actually have a public GIT server setup and
> have the patches there instead one giant, unworkable monster patch? 

I'm fine with the current patches, deltas and splits

but don't let me stop you from putting all changes into
a GIT repository (as long as you do that and keep
maintaining it)

> I'm willing to set this up provided people will use it. 

tried GIT, didn't work for me ...

> Or at least people send patches and commits to it instead of that 
> kernel-diff-monster!

is that a nickname for me? :)

> As to paying Herbert to port vserver to latest kernel, no offense, 
> but that may not be a good idea unless you want to hire Herbert. 

probably hard, unless you mean for consulting (which is
what I do for money) ...

> I've seen this already in other projects and it did not work out 
> so well. 

in this case it would allow me to do less consulting and
more Linux-VServer specific work (and still pay my bills :)

> For example, grsecurity. As far as I can tell, development 
> stalled there.

how's that related?

> Kind of like it stalled in vserver.

huh? why do you think that development stalled in 
Linux-VServer? (or what do you mean by vserver?)

note: the changes in 2.6.24-2.6.26 (caused by the
partial adoption of OS-Level virtualization and related
breakage) requires major changes to certain parts of
Linux-VServer, which in turn require a lot of testing
before we will flag it 'Stable' ...

as for recent development, go and get the experimental
version (currently 2.3.0.35-pre5) and let us know how
it works for you (and/or what issues you have)

> If you are willing to hire a vserver developer to get things moving,
> please do. 

> But one-time "contract" doesn't work long term.

naturally, per definition

note: I'm all for hiring additional Linux-VServer
developers, the more the merrier ...

> So, either,
> 
>  1. people start paying people to get vserver work done, or
>  2. people start to volunteer time to get things done.

> Either way works. But having pledge drives (or what seem to be pledge
> drives) just indicates the project is in its death-throws.

> Now, regarding actual work on stuff. Adrian Bunk has been maintaining
> the 2.6.16.x kernel tree and will continue to maintain it for a bit. 
> Is it feasible to backport vs.2.2 branch back to that stable tree?

sure, but that's definitely something I won't spend time
on, unless it is well payed ...

best,
Herbert

> - Adam