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 Sat, 12 Jan 2013 00:04:38 GMT
I started a separate thread [IP Clearance] Potential issues. The first post has summary of
potential issues, please review

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 2:43 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Concerns about where development has happened
> 
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
> <animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com> wrote:
> > 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?
> >
> 
> "Substantial" is the term used by the process documentation.  I pointedly asked
> one of our mentors for advice on defining "substantial", and the response was
> basically "it's complicated" and "consider the cases individually".
> 
> I would suggest that we follow that advice.  We discuss each contribution,
> individually, to understand what the community consensus on each one is.  If
> we decide that we want to accept a contribution, and further decide that we
> want to take it through the IP clearance process, we should continue with each
> contribution being handled separately.
> 
> In order to be specific in each discuss thread, we need to ensure that we have a
> public location where the proposed contribution is available for review.
> 
> I also believe that a VOTE within the community will be required for each (after
> the DISCUSS or PROPOSE thread proposing the contribution initially), before
> taking the process to the IPMC.  My reason for that, is that I believe we need to
> begin to *act like* a responsible TLP, even though we are still a podling.
> 
> -chip
> 
> > 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