Re: "wireguard" implementation improperly merged and needs revert

[Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>]

Hello,

On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 01:47:46PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> [...]
> A proper implementation of WireGuard *is* quite complex, actually. And
> that misunderstanding is what's gotten us here. Again, see my previous
> reply to Taylor. This isn't a matter of dusting off some old code that
> sends packets or something; that simply won't cut it with WireGuard,
> and pretending otherwise is incredibly irresponsible. I'll address
> your other point about a separate branch below when it comes up again.

Maybe you should give more specific examples of what is missing or wrong
with the current code. You keep saying there are things wrong or missing but
you don't give examples, so for us followers, not familiar with the feature
(I didn't know about wireguard before taylor's commits), your mails looks
more rants than anything else.


> [...]
> > However, moving it to a development
> > branch would probably be a good move; it would eliminate the confusion as to
> > whether it is production-ready (which it isn't yet), while still allowing
> > people to make changes and development to happen. Jason/Taylor, does that
> > sound good to you?
> 
> Actually, yes, sure. If you want to put this in a "wgdev" branch, or
> some such name, and move it out of the master development branch,
> that'd be productive and also give us some more room to unpack things
> -- specifically, a wg-specific feature branch, rather than a "next
> version" branch or something. When I asked that you revert the code, I
> didn't mean, "revert it and place it in the dumpster", but was more
> thinking of moving it to a development tree somewhere, because with
> Linux development, things usually work with individual developer
> trees. If NetBSD has feature-development branches within its main
> repository, that works well.I wouldn't want to totally discard
> Taylor's improvements on Ozaki-san's code, especially as that might
> wind up being the basis of our work on this moving forward. In other
> words, wherever it makes sense to develop it, let's do that, so long
> as we merge it to the master tree *not before* it's ready. (With that
> said, is a cvs branch what you had in mind? Or does NetBSD have a
> pretty established flow for git/hg feature development branches
> instead?)

Actually, in NetBSD, HEAD *is* the main developement branch.
We occasionally create dev branches for things that impact a large portion
of the tree or touch critical subsystems, but for things that are
self-contained and not enabled by defaut (and it looks like wg falls in
this category) a specific branch is usually not needed.

-- 
Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>
     NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--