|
Great to hear Peter. Now Wensong can just do up something reasonable for the
file and
over the next few months you two, and everyone else here, can discuss what
should be
added/removed/cleaned up, if anything, in the 2.2 code. By the way, thank you
very much
for including the load-balancing module idea.
Cheers,
Matthew
Peter Kese wrote:
> Matthew Kellett wrote:
> >
> > Hi Rok and Wensong,
> >
> > This should be fairly simple. Virtual Server support was not Written by
> > Peter
> > Kese, it was re-written and adapted to the 2.2 kernel by him. The logic
> > behind it
> > is still the same, even if the implementation is completely different.
> > That's what
> > this is all about.
>
> I agree with this. Take it one way or another, the basic idea was
> Wensong's
> and I only did the porting to 2.2. I only wanted to help everyone get
> the 2.2
> patch out as soon as possible and I have implemented it in my own way,
> not
> because I wanted to neglect Wensong's work, but because I was using my
> intuition when writing the code.
>
> > My suggestion is for Wensong to write up the licensing section
> > that he thinks should be at the start of the file and mail it to the list.
>
> That would be great. Wensong already posted an example... Just send me
> anything
> you all agree upon and I will include it into the source code. Licensing
> problems was the last thing it was on my mind when preparing the patch.
> I appologize for my mistake and will appreciate any help from the
> mailing list.
>
> > We can fight over the wording of that and then decide whether you're
> > willing to delete the current section and add the new one to the file.
>
> I am willing to delete and add a new one. From my perspective, it can
> state that the code was written by Wensong and rewritten or ported by
> me.
>
> I can also change the configuration text in the config.in file. Any
> suggestions?
>
> > If that doesn't work, then I'll
> > have a few more suggestions. Let's just try this for now. I think we can
> > come to
> > a compromise and still keep the integrity of this project.
>
> Hopefully yes. I would like to keep the code as a part of the Wensong's
> project
> and have therefore included the Wensong's URL instead of building MY own
> web
> site for MY :) Virtual server project. I am still optimistic about that
> and still
> hope the Virtual Server community will adopt the patch. If you/they
> don't, I
> will not be insulted, I have had great time hacking linux kernel.
>
> I do admit, my communication to the mailing list was preety minimalistic
> when
> I was writing the patch. I wanted to implement the basic Wensong's
> functionallity,
> expose the code to the public as soon as possible and wait for the
> comments and
> bugs to appear. The code is here, the comments are here and we are
> discussing
> them, all that I am missing are bug reports (anyone?) ...
>
> Cheers,
> Peter
|
