cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Animesh Chaturvedi <animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com>
Subject RE: [ACS41] Concerns about where development has happened
Date Fri, 11 Jan 2013 21:43:36 GMT


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 12:10 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Concerns about where development has happened
> 
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 2:40 PM, David Nalley <david@gnsa.us> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Chip Childers
> > <chip.childers@sungard.com> wrote:
> >> IMO, no.  I want the first issue resolved first (revert the code that
> >> shouldn't be in the repo).  Then we can talk about accepting the
> >> donation proposal I assume is coming.
> >>
> >> But this is just my opinion.  Anyone else?
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
> >> <animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com> wrote:
> >>> Chip
> >>>
> >>> Should we expedite IP clearance process and avoid having to revert
> commits?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>> Animesh
> >>>
> >
> >
> > I don't know that there is a 'expedite' option. Our history thus far
> > is that this doesn't happen rapidly. I think the fastest we can get
> > away with is likely a week - and that's assuming all of the planets
> > align, all paperwork is immediately signed, acknowledged, we have only
> > tailwinds, etc. Given that it is currently the 11th, I'm not even sure
> > that with the volume of problematic features that they'll even be
> > through IP Clearance by code freeze.
> >
> > --David
> >
> 
> These reverts are now blocking Chiradeep's refactoring effort / merge
> proposal.  I'd suggest that not only should the reverts happen first, but that they
> happen soon please.

I intend to do things the right way too, I am following up on impact of  getting the changes
reverted. Some of the folks are in different time zone though.

Mime
View raw message