[Lustre-devel] Fwd: The Lustre community and GIT

Peter Braam peter.braam at clusterstor.com
Sat Dec 26 07:01:31 PST 2009

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 15, 2009, at 14:05, Andreas Dilger <adilger at sun.com> wrote:

> Hello Peter,
> As previously announced, we have already made the initial Lustre  
> repository available to everyone this week at git.lustre.org.  This  
> repository contains all of the main development and release branches  
> and their history.  It's where all of the Sun developers and  
> maintaners will get their sources from, and it will continue to be  
> available under the GPL v2 license as it always has been.
> Sun's policy of prioritizing stability, not just for releases but also
> to underpin development, makes safeguarding the quality of this
> repository paramount.  Everyone contributing to the Lustre sources -
> not just internal Sun engineers but also external contributors like
> LLNL, CEA, ORNL and DDN - is therefore subject to the same gatekeeping
> procedures and must follow the same patch submission, testing and
> landing processes.  These are further detailed in the wiki pages that
> were in the original announcement:
> http://wiki.lustre.org/index.php/Accessing_Lustre_Code
> http://wiki.lustre.org/index.php/Submitting_Patches

Sun is no longer supporting the Lustre community (storage OEMs and  
others have been refused further support).  The model you describe  
won't apply much longer I think.  People will be looking for different  


> For people not familiar with Git, it should be clarified that  
> limiting commits to the Sun Prime repository does not in any way  
> restrict access to the Lustre code, or the ability of non-Sun  
> developers to share their own Git clone with the Lustre community.   
> Developers will be able to host their own Lustre clones (essentially  
> full repositories) as and where they wish.  The major advantage of  
> Git is that anyone can pull from any repository, or in fact from a  
> number of different repositories at the same time - this choice is  
> left to the user.
> This is the same model used by the Linux kernel, and has proven to  
> work well with Git.  Each kernel developer hosts their own clone(s)  
> at git.kernel.org, or at some other site like repo.or.cz, or github.com 
> , and when they have changes to submit upstream they send an email  
> (usually containing both the patch, and the git URL to pull from) to  
> the subsystem maintainer, or to Linus directly, requesting that he  
> pull their changes.  This pull request is normally only sent after  
> the patch has been reviewed, possibly multiple times,  by the  
> appropriate subsystem maintainers.  Each developer has full control  
> over their own clone, and in fact it is rare that more than one  
> person has push access to a clone.
> The fact that there are many different clones (some more important,  
> and others less so) in no way implies that the kernel is being  
> forked, but rather that this is the standard way in which to use Git  
> to exchange changes.  The location at which a clone is hosted also  
> has no bearing on its usefulness.
> To answer your specific concerns in more detail,
> On 2009-12-13, at 11:47, Peter Braam wrote:
>> 1. We need a public repository, where non Sun community members can  
>> commit.
>> a.  There are Lustre users than have their own branches.  LLNL has  
>> probably the best tested branch among all users.  DDN's customers  
>> have a version of Lustre that includes patches not yet in Sun's  
>> releases.  It would be very valuable if these kind of releases  
>> could be collected in a publicly accessible GIT repository.
> That is true even today - most of the patches that are in the DDN  
> branches were initially developed by Sun and are already in the  
> publicly-available Lustre CVS, and many of the LLNL patches have or  
> are being landed for the 1.8.2 release.
> As you know, there will always be a delta of patches that are not in  
> an official release, and will be available in the next one.  With  
> the increase in testing to improve the quality of new releases  
> compared to the past, releases are by necessity less frequent.   
> Should anyone have a desire for more bleeding-edge code, they have  
> always been able fetch the current branch before its release,  
> regardless of whether this is Git or CVS.  We maintain a number of  
> different branches (b1_8 for incremental development,  
> b_release_1_8_1 for critical fixes on the 1.8.1 release, etc) these  
> are already available to the public.
>> I doubt that Sun will give commit rights to external entities (this  
>> is not unreasonable, Sun needs to control what code enters its  
>> repositories).  Hence I think that the community would be better  
>> served with a GIT repository in a public place, like github, that  
>> can give such access.
> While CVS was very restrictive in terms of managing external commit  
> permissions due to its monolithic repository, some external  
> contributors have had commit access to CVS prior our migration to  
> Git, based on need.  With the migration to Git there is no need to  
> manage such access ourselves, as developers are able to host their  
> clones wherever they want.  The git.lustre.org repository will  
> remain the canonical source for Sun releases, and we will be happy  
> to pull fixes into this repository that meet the quality guidelines  
> stated above.  I for one would welcome external inspectors on  
> patches, and we continue to work with external sites to do scale  
> testing of Lustre.
>> My group at ClusterStor has reserved the "lustre" project at Github  
>> and we will give keys to any and all organizations that wish to  
>> make serious contributions to Lustre.  I was in particular hoping  
>> that LLNL would be willing to commit their releases to that public  
>> place.
> Note that with Git and github.com there is no need to give keys to  
> anyone, and in fact that would seem to be detrimental to  
> ClusterStor, because the "lustre" clone you have reserved is within  
> your company's private hosting space (i.e. http://github.com/clusterstor/lustre 
> ).  With Github (or Git in general) it is possible for anyone to  
> make their own clone or mirror of a repository at any time, no keys  
> or permission required, and it will appear ashttp://github.com/ 
> {user}/lustre or whatever they want to call it.
>> b.  Everyone is uncertain about what Sun will do with Lustre  
>> (proprietary Solaris / ZFS server releases and discontinued support  
>> for Linux servers have been mentioned to me several times now).  A  
>> public repository with the open code will be valuable for the  
>> community and promote continued development and access.
> I agree that a public repository is important, and we will continue  
> to host one at git.lustre.org as we have in the past for CVS, and it  
> can and should be cloned as needed.  As you are hopefully aware,  
> with Git every checkout has a full copy of the repository, including  
> all history, so the code is already very "open" and "public".   
> Lustre is, and will continue to be, available as GPL software.
> We definitely welcome external contributions to Lustre, which have  
> in the past been done by a small number of people outside of Sun.  I  
> don't think the choice of CVS or Git or hosting site has ever been a  
> limiting factor in this regard.  We look forward to contributions of  
> fixes, designs, and features, from ClusterStor, as we would with any  
> Lustre contributor.
>> 2. We need MUCH more in the repository than Sun is putting into it.
>> There are many development branches and sometimes abandoned  
>> projects that still have a lot of value.  For example, there is a  
>> nearly complete OS X client port - what if someone wanted to pick  
>> that up?  Similarly, there are projects like size on MDS or the  
>> network request scheduler that may need help from the community to  
>> get finished or re-prioritized.
> All of the Lustre history is still available in CVS, as it has  
> always been.  As far as I know (I've never checked it out myself)  
> even the OS/X client port is publicly available today, which was not  
> true a few years ago.
> Due to the convoluted branch, repository, and tag abuse that was  
> used to manage the Lustre code in CVS, there is a non-zero effort  
> required to migrate any of the branches in CVS to Git.  Rather than  
> bring all of the old detritus along into Git, only the main  
> development/production branches are being automatically migrated  
> initially.
> Now that the Git migration is complete, the Sun maintainers of non- 
> release features (HSM, SOM, CMD, NRS, etc) will be creating Git  
> clones and landing their work into them as time permits.
> If anyone wants to import one of the other CVS branches (e.g. OS/X),  
> all they will need to do is create a patch from that branch and then  
> commit this into their own Git clone.
>> It is unclear to me if these kind of branches can be found in the  
>> publicly available CVS.
> Yes, they can, as they always have been.  The CVS repository will  
> remain available indefinitely for spelunking expeditions should the  
> need arise.  Note that the full history that leads to the current  
> release branches (b1_6, b1_8, HEAD) is available in Git, so there is  
> at least a trail of breadcrumbs leading to where we are today.
>> If they can, a collection of relevant branches, broadly along the  
>> lines of what I mention above, should be placed in the public GIT  
>> repository.
> For currently-active branches this was already our plan.  For  
> historical and inactive branches, and we welcome any contributions  
> that bring these ancient CVS branches back to life.  Nikita is  
> probably best positioned to know what needs to be imported from the  
> OS/X branch in CVS, and if there are other particular branches that  
> contain important work we'll be happy to discuss them with you.  It  
> will of course be possible to create Git clones for these old  
> branches as needed.
>> 3. Brian's email message seems to indicate that Sun's git  
>> repository will be used for Sun development.  In the past there  
>> were two CVS repositories - a read-only one that was publicly  
>> accessible and when I last controlled the group it was updated very  
>> frequently with all open source code (presently, it seems to only  
>> contain releases, not the development stream of commits).
> That's not correct.  The public cvs.lustre.org repository in fact  
> contains all of the Lustre commits and all of the history.  I just  
> did a checkout and there are in fact tags and branches for the pre- 
> release 1.8.2 builds, lprocfs rewrite, CMD, etc. that are very much  
> works in progress.
> One of the very last commits on CVS HEAD was on Thursday before CVS  
> went read-only, from a patch submitted by LLNL:
> revision 1.593
> date: 2009/12/10 13:52:51;  author: dzogin;  state: Exp;  lines: +5 -0
> Branch HEAD
> b=21259
> i=andrew.perepechko
> i=alexey.lyashkov
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Description: Allow non-root access for "lfs check".
> Details    : Added a check in obd_class_ioctl() for  
>> It is unclear how Sun can manage development with this git  
>> repository given that parts of its work are proprietary (like the  
>> Windows port) or unreleased (like the ZFS work).  Can we get more  
>> insight in what Brian is alluding to?
> I'm not sure what "alluding" you are alluding to?
> Of course, if there is any proprietary code developed it will just  
> not be pushed to the public git.lustre.org repository.  I expect  
> that any proprietary or unreleased code that ClusterStor is already  
> or will develop will similarly not be posted publicly until you are  
> ready to do so.
> Sun's current in-progress code will very likely reside in separate  
> clones at git.lustre.org, but will not be merged into the Sun Prime  
> repository for an official release until it is inspected, tested,  
> and has permission to land.  Pulls into the Sun Prime repository  
> will be done by the release manager for each branch, as previously  
> stated.  The Lustre engineers at ClusterStor are already familiar  
> with this process and have already had their first patch pass  
> inspections and it is ready for landing.
> That is one of the major benefits of Git over CVS - that there ISN'T  
> a single repository, and in fact every clone has a full copy of the  
> history and can be used by anyone.  There is no need to have all of  
> the development done in branches on a single repository, but rather  
> to keep projects in their own clones.
> That allows developers to do local commits on their machines, to  
> push it to their public clone if they want to share their work and/ 
> or make an offsite backup, and people are free to choose which clone  
> one they use.  Sun's Prime repository used for releases will only  
> contain stable Lustre code.  This is the Git usage model for the  
> Linux kernel, and think it is a good one to follow for Lustre as  
> well.  You are free to manage your clones in some other way.
> Cheers, Andreas
> --
> Andreas Dilger
> Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group
> Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.

More information about the lustre-devel mailing list