GraphiteWriter UDP as Pull Request?


I was looking into configuring GraphiteWriter to use UDP and found Issue. I was wondering if this meant no PR would be considered if I had the time to put one together. I thought I’d ask here before spending more time looking into it if it would just be insta-closed.

Lee Clemens

1 Like

Disclaimer, I’m not a dev nor part of the dev community

If it’s styled how they like it, has all the tests/documentation/etc that it’s required to have, I don’t see why they would accept it.

I think the PR means that they do not plan to use their own resources to create the feature. Not uncommon among any project.

This reminds me of an unrelated issue where they said they would write a feature if they received corporate sponsorship (ie, $$$$) to do so.

Best case scenario is to ping the issue (or open a new related issue), ask if they would accept the changes and if you did all of the leg work.

Thanks for the thoughts (I assume you meant “wouldn’t accept it” in the first bit). The GitHub issue is 3 years old, so I figured I’d ask here - although I’m not sure how frequented these forums are by the devs.

The dev that closed that particular issue used to be very frequent on here, but he left the project last year. You might get a faster response from them on github, but a dev might show up and be able to point you in the right direction (or possibly give you an answer)

I know he was taking some time off a while ago, but didn’t realize he left. I’ll certainly reply via GitHub (but wouldn’t that just notify the OP and the dev who closed it and has left?) if no dev responds here. It’s late in Germany now.

Ping-as-a-Service :wink: @theFeu
Maybe you or one of the devs can give their opinion on this :)?


Hello there!
I have been summoned! Thanks for mentioning me :slight_smile:
I’ll have a chat with the devs


I just talked with one of our developers from the Icinga 2 team.
As it is holiday season at the moment, we weren’t able to actually reach the critical mass to decide on this.
By the looks of it, the PR would be a rather big change and the team would need to discuss whether that would be beneficial to the project or if reviewing the pull request would take more time than we can spare at the moment.
If that is okay with you, I would bring it up again in one and a half weeks, when everyone is back in the office - maybe we could even get someone from our side involved in the planning of the feature, in case the change fits with our general planning :slight_smile:


Thanks for taking the time to followup with the devs and here :slight_smile: I’d think it deserves at least a low priority feature request place, but I realize there is time involved in the PR review even if no dev time is used. I appreciate the update!


We discussed this today and think it would be a good addition.

This assessment is based on that we think that this will implement the same protocol as we already do for TCP but just send the same messages over UDP. So the changes needed should boil down to a new config option to switch between TCP and UDP plus a few case distinctions in the implementation. If that’s not the case, or while trying to implement this, you notice that this would need larger changes, please let us know first instead of just creating a huge PR.

Can you please comment on the issue on GitHub, then I’ll reopen it and we can have the technical discussion (as needed) over there.

A heads-up notice as we changed this quite recently so that you won’t be surprised after opening a PR: we now require signing a Contributor License Agreement for all new contributions.