Upstart 0.5.0. Assertion causing kernel panic with respawn stanza

[Saravanan Shanmugham (sarvi)]

Hi Charlie,
    I suggest you reread my mail a couple of times. And also do go back
read some of the earlier mails from me on this topic. I have nothing but
respect for Scott.  But that doesn't mean I can't disgree with his idea
of developing in private and releasing later. So I felt it was
constructive feedback and that was necessary and I have done it as
politely and honestly a I can.
    What I talk about below is in the interest of Upstart. Because
Upstart is public code already and there are people beginning to use and
depend on it or its roadmap as well as people trying to contribute back
to its development.
    But I notce from a separate email thread Scott started he is already
beginning to address this issue and we can build momentum on this. 
    So lets rest is thread. No one is bashing anyone here.

Sarvi   

-----Original Message-----
From: Charlie Woloszynski [mailto:cwoloszynski at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 4:37 AM
To: Saravanan Shanmugham (sarvi)
Cc: Kees Jongenburger; Sandeep Puddupakkam (spuddupa); Upstart Dev List;
Scott James Remnant
Subject: Re: Upstart 0.5.0. Assertion causing kernel panic with respawn
stanza
Importance: High

I can no longer sit quietly back on this.....

Please stop bashing Scott.   Open source is about offering your work  
to be used by others.  How someone goes about deciding when their work
is ready for public eyes is a very personal thing.  Just because he want
to do some development before he shares (and explores some ideas) does
not mean he want to keep something secret.  Perhaps he just wants the
option of exploring some risky ideas without having to face a public
realization that some idea was less-than-what-he-had-hoped- for.  Same
thing for exerting leadership of a group; not all folks want to or care
to try to lead others.

You should be thankful for his contributions.  If you want to branch off
and pursue changes in the code, you are free to do so.  You don't need
to be less-than-civil to Scott.

It is a sad day when people try to bully other folks publicly.     
Before you criticize Scott for not sharing, perhaps you should share
your changes to the group that you have not had time to share.

Charlie



On May 22, 2009, at 4:00 AM, Saravanan Shanmugham (sarvi) wrote:

> Hi Kees,
>    I agree we have found quite a few issues, and I haven't found find 
> the time to push these changes back upstream. Anyway my team has bet 
> heavily on upstart and I am not too impressed with its progress as of 
> now.
>
> I hear there is next release that is being developed away from public 
> eyes.
>
> There seems to more importance given to keeping some secret sauce code

> secret, than driving and leading community development. It seems to me

> that we are fogetting that this is open source code, which means the 
> secret sauce is not gonna be secret for too long. The real edge we 
> have is getting a community following. And I keep hearing on mailing 
> list that doesn't feel encouraged as well.
>
> A few of weeks ago, I had half the mind to say hell with this and 
> branch upstart off and do our own development.  And to be honest at 
> this rate I don't think its an option I have closed off. This is very 
> discomforting and would be a shame if I ended up doing that, as I 
> think Scott has some really good ideas for upstart. I just really wish

> he would show more initiative in developing and leading a community 
> that seems to be only willing to help.
>
> Sarvi
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: upstart-devel-bounces at lists.ubuntu.com
> [mailto:upstart-devel-bounces at lists.ubuntu.com] On Behalf Of Kees 
> Jongenburger
> Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 12:26 AM
> To: Sandeep Puddupakkam (spuddupa)
> Cc: Upstart Dev List; Scott James Remnant
> Subject: Re: Upstart 0.5.0. Assertion causing kernel panic with 
> respawn stanza
>
> Hello Sandeep,
>
> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Sandeep Puddupakkam (spuddupa) 
> <spuddupa at cisco.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> We are using Upstart version 0.5.0.
>> If a job has a respawn stanza and the main process terminates before 
>> post-start script ends, there is a assertion which is causing a 
>> kernel
>
>> panic.
>> This does not cause a assertion if the respawn stanza is not present.
>> I am working on a fix for this issue.
>> However I want to find out if this issue fixed in any of the newer
>
> It's very nice to see somebody trying to fix issues in 0.5.x. We tried

> to send a few patches in the past to fix some trivial issues but 
> somehow they did not end up in the code. The public upstart code is 
> "dead".
> The
> update 0.5* code is broken and critical bugs like yours where not 
> addressed in the past month so I am not holding my breath.
>
> The bug you describe sounds similar to 
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/upstart/+bug/337640 but this is a per-stop 
> script.
> Overall we think daemon, respawn and the start/stop on "something 
> else"
> is broken. This leaves us with upstart being able to start and stop 
> something and that is not very impressive. I think the daemon and 
> crashes are fixable but dependency handling is simply broken by 
> design.
>
> Kind regards
>
> --
> upstart-devel mailing list
> upstart-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/upstart-devel
>
> --
> upstart-devel mailing list
> upstart-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/upstart-devel