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 Mon, 14 Jan 2013 19:39:08 GMT


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 11:35 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Concerns about where development has happened
> 
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
> <animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com> wrote:
> > Ok  to summarize for 306 we will not revert the changes at this time because
> of technical issues. 306 will still have to go through the IP clearance process
> and will be dropped if it does not pass the clearance. Please expect a separate
> thread on IP clearance for 306 once Sheng posts the code.
> >
> 
> My opinion isn't the only one here though...  so someone else can feel free to
> completely disagree and push for the revert to happen.
> 
[Animesh>]  Yes of course


> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> >> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 11:02 AM
> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Concerns about where development has happened
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Alex Huang <Alex.Huang@citrix.com>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I thought that we had agreed that Chiradeep's network refactoring
> >> >> was going to merge into master first, and he's waiting for the
> >> >> reverts before doing his merge.  Alex (others), what's your opinion?
> >> >>
> >> > Chip,
> >> >
> >> > We've looked at the effects from the reverts on javelin.  I think
> >> > the main
> >> problem is the commits for bug 306.  This one is particularly bad
> >> because its fixes are intertwined now with the api_refactoring merge
> >> and it's difficult to for us to see a way out of this one.  We like
> >> to ask the community for an exception for this bug on technical
> >> reasons for this one problem.  I talked with Chiradeep and he's okay with
> that as well for the network refactoring branch.
> >> >
> >> > If for some reason the fixes for this bug cannot pass ip clearance
> >> > then we'll
> >> just have to deal with it.
> >> >
> >> > All the other reverts, we're fine with absorbing in javelin.
> >>
> >> I can accept that, as long as we all understand that we can't release
> >> any code from master (or any other branch that includes those
> >> commits) until that code has been accepted via IP clearance.  We're
> >> just talking about CLOUDSTACK-306 commits though, right?  If we don't
> >> pass the IP clearance process for that code, then we will have to
> >> stop until we get it pulled out.  Hopefully that won't happen though.
> >>
> >> For the CLOUDSTACK-312 commits, any update on reverting them Murali?
> >>
> >>
> >> > --Alex
> >> >
> >

Mime
View raw message