cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Wido den Hollander <>
Subject Re: [ASFCS40] CloudStack 4.0 release plan
Date Fri, 10 Aug 2012 08:19:59 GMT
On 08/10/2012 02:27 AM, Ewan Mellor wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Chip Childers []
>> [Snip]
>> Thinking about the milestone along those lines, I agree that cutting a
>> release branch over the weekend is a good thing.  This is specifically
>> because of the pending review board submissions that we should start
>> getting integrated into master as a parallel activity to 4.0 work.
> OK, so I think from this and David's earlier email and general consensus that we want
to get into a time-based schedule, then we're still on to start the feature freeze at the
end of Friday, and have a 4.0 release branch ready for Monday morning.  Everyone agreed?

+1, from monday on we'll have a 4.0 branch.

That means however that you have to submit bugs fixes into master and 
4.0.x, right?

>> [Snip]
>> - Regardless of our desire to be time-bound for our releases, our
>> first release has a higher-order issue (licensing) that will block us
>> if anything significant is outstanding.
>> - Given the importance of the licensing aspects, I believe that we
>> have to think of the "First release candidate build" milestone as
>> being predicated on the community believing / agreeing that we have
>> achieved a satisfactory level of compliance to pass an IPMC vote.
> Yes, makes sense to me.
>> [Snip]
>> Let's think about "convenience builds" along two lines (because there
>> are different issues to deal with):
>> Binary distribution of the core project - I think this is basically
>> sorting through the optional vs. required components.  Any binary
>> distro we produce would be only include the required build targets,
>> not the optional ones.  I'm not sure there is much debate open here.
>> We're headed down the right path.  :-)
> Yep.
>> System VMs - I've reviewed the discussion notes from OSCON again, just
>> to refresh my memory.  I might not be understanding the verbal
>> conversation correctly, but it doesn't seem to match what I see on the
>> site.  Specifically, David mentioned that there was
>> verbal consensus that we could possibly "prepare a system VM as we
>> distribute it now as a convenience binary".  The item that I'm
>> concerned about is the "Distribution" section of the Third-Party
>> Licensing Policy [1] that says "YOU MUST NOT distribute a prohibited
>> work from an server.".  Doesn't the system VM qualify as a
>> prohibited work?
> I agree that System VM binaries are forbidden by written policy.  It is possible to ask
for exceptions to this policy -- I have done so for libvirt-java, and Sam Ruby says that he'll
approve that next week if no-one disagrees in the meantime.  If we felt that we needed to
make a similar request regarding System VMs, we can do that.
> Getting alternative infrastructure is a possibility.  I'm sure Citrix could manage that,
though I worry about the perception that would create, if the software is effectively unusable
without Citrix servers.
> Cheers,
> Ewan.

View raw message