Re: [Nbd] More efficient treatment of experimental protocol extensions

[Wouter Verhelst <w@...112...>]

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 05:16:28PM +0100, Alex Bligh wrote:
> Wouter,
> 
> On 14 Apr 2016, at 16:38, Wouter Verhelst <w@...112...> wrote:
> > This sounds like a viable approach,
> 
> I propose I come up with a patch to move the current experimental
> stuff out to a branch then.
> 
> As Erik currently is performing open heart surgery on NBD_OPT_INFO

Eric ;-)

> I'll leave it until the patient is in recovery before doing that one.
> 
> Structured replies is (famous last words) already in that state.

Yeah, I think so too.

> I haven't paid much attention to WRITE_ZEROES but I think that's
> relatively stable too. I'm guessing if we had a server side implementation
> of that we could promote it.

There seems to be some discussion going on there still. I'm not sure.

> > except that currently I'm still the
> > only person able to merge patches, which means I get to be a bottleneck
> > all the time. Not ideal.
> > 
> > Maybe I should fix that.
> > 
> > Alex: according to github, you've made the second-highest number of
> > commits to nbd. That, plus your actions on this mailinglist mean you've
> > been annoying me enough to be punished for it.
> > 
> > Consider yourself a committer ;-)
> 
> Thanks for that!

You're welcome. Just don't abuse it ;-)

> I will on this basis congratulate myself on being so annoying ;-)

You do that.

> > (I'll also add you to the sourceforge project if you have an account
> > there and tell me what it is...)
> 
> Unoriginally enough, abligh.

Added.

> Not that I have anything on sourceforge now and I didn't know there was still
> any NBD stuff there still to be honest,

The file releases are still done there, and I keep doing "git push" to
both sourceforge and github. I suggest you do the same.

> but I now find a website. I was going to put up a list of nbd
> clients/server somewhere, so that sounds like a good place.

Sure, why not?

(that website calls for being updated at some point, though -- it's
pretty much still the same website it was fifteen years ago, and even
then it was oldfashioned)

-- 
< ron> I mean, the main *practical* problem with C++, is there's like a dozen
       people in the world who think they really understand all of its rules,
       and pretty much all of them are just lying to themselves too.
 -- #debian-devel, OFTC, 2016-02-12