bundy

At Wed, 30 Apr 2014 11:14:01 +0200,
Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz at isc.org> wrote:

> >> If the collaborative decision made will be to continue
> >> developing DHCP in Bundy, there will be tons of patches flying
> >> back and forth between Kea and Bundy. Having them done in orderly
> >> manner would require some planning.
> >
> > this is a good point. No decisions have been made.
> I think that regardless of the decision, some patches will be shared.
> Even if the decision would be to not develop DHCP in Bundy, Kea is
> using libdns, libutil and many other libs. There will be fixes in
> those libs done in both repos.

Regarding libdns++, I think the ideal way is to unify the effort,
rather than maintaining the each branch of the fork.  libdns++ was
intended to be as standalone as possible from the beginning, and
is generally less dependent on other part of BIND 10/Bundy.  Maybe we
should make it even more so, e.g., allowing it to be buildable
separately.  And, then, ideally, Kea could use it as a third party
library just like Boost or log4cplus, and ISC developers could
directly contribute to the Bundy version of libdns++ as they find bugs
or need for enhancement.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya