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 22:19:36 GMT
As suggested by community Citrix will go through IP clearance process. I am updating identified
defects with more contextual  information and will summarize in this thread once I am done.
The list is longer than originally identified. This is obviously an important lesson and hopefully
we  will not run into similar situation in future. 

I also wanted to get clarification on what does community consider significant contribution
with respect to IP clearance? Is 300-400 lines of code that has gone through community discussion
but submitted in 1-2 commits considered significant?

I have looked over the Apache guidelines and markmail archive on IP clearance process  but
still  looking forward to guidance/help on IP clearance logistics from folks who have that
experience.  

Thanks
Animesh




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 7:07 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: [ACS41] Concerns about where development has happened
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> In reviewing the feature proposals for 4.1.0, David and I have found many
> problems that indicate that development has happened outside of the
> community.  While I can't be sure that we've found all of the issues, it's
> certainly problematic to see this many.
> 
> Please review and let me know if I'm misinterpreting the state of things.
> 
> I'm not sure where to go from here.  I guess we have 2 options: we re-write the
> code from scratch as CloudStack code, or Citrix donates the code produced for
> CloudPlatform (and it gets taken through the IP clearance process).
> 
> The following features are potentially issues:
> 
> CLOUDSTACK-297
> This is in the CloudPlatform 3.0.6 release Discussion occurred in October I don't
> believe that the code is in the ASF repo
> 
> CLOUDSTACK-299
> This is in the CloudPlatform 3.0.6 release The UI code appears to be in our
> repo, but the backend does not.
> Example, grep for: createEgressFirewallRule
> 
> CLOUDSTACK-306 (CLOUDSTACK-775 is a duplicate) This is in the
> CloudPlatform 3.0.6 release Commits went into master on Jan 4 (there are 3
> commits) Discussion happened in October
> 
> CLOUDSTACK-737
> This is in the CloudPlatform 3.0.6 release UI work completed (CLOUDSTACK-
> 537) in the asf repo, starting in november I can't find any commits for the
> backend work in our repo The requirements wiki page and jira record were
> created on Jan 3 Dev list discussion started in November, but there were
> outstanding questions that were not addressed in that thread.  Unsure if
> consensus was achieved.
> 
> CLOUDSTACK-774
> Frank identified that this was a "Byron feature" and that all "Byron features
> should be merged to ASF repo", but I'm unable to find in the CloudPlatform
> release notes Unable to find dev list discussion
> 
> CLOUDSTACK-777
> This is in the CloudPlatform 3.0.6 release Docs already submitted, but no FS
> available.
> Unable to find dev list discussion
> 
> CLOUDSTACK-778
> This is in the CloudPlatform 3.0.6 release Docs are done, but feature doesn't
> exist in CloudStack Unable to find dev list discussion
> 
> Also, generally all documentation originally created for CloudPlatform
> 3.0.6 features, but not created in the CloudStack git repo or submitted prior to
> publication will need to go through IP clearance.
> 
> Also: CLOUDSTACK-873 is not proposed for 4.1.0, but appears to be in
> CloudPlatform 3.0.6.  I may be misinterpreting this, but it appears to be
> something that will need to go through IP clearance.
> 
> -chip

Mime
View raw message