cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com>
Subject Re: [ACS41] Concerns about where development has happened
Date Fri, 11 Jan 2013 15:17:16 GMT
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Chip Childers
<chip.childers@sungard.com> wrote:
> 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

Based on the related discussions, I'm unfortunately going to place a
binding -1 veto on any commits related to the issues noted above.

Beyond the pre-commit veto for uncommitted code and docs, I'm
specifically going to revert the following commits in master:

CLOUDSTACK-306
    42c8c73ab6437d86578f7f6d7b48a96a2de29bec
    177e157cbfa40af82de628cb00876678d7646d2d
    717f9dcd4d25e2a3ccf12598d16cc5d81fd880a9
CLOUDSTACK-312
    7fcfcdf91e49d64375171c9ae7fe61067aa59b6e
    d4c604cfd8ec6b385de7abf694a936e89add0f38
    6657246cd44629c30e6ea21cc4bbd43a42788e12
    0de5a145e4f06420a4eb1867309af674c16ace7c
    28bbf6c52798c9bd298952844250fbc3cb92dce0
CLOUDSTACK-800
    106730ccdde30450e96d080ed6c9791682fb7300

There may be others which require a revert, and I would ask for the
rest of the community to help me identify any that I may have missed.

I look forward to working with Citrix and the community members in
question to resolve the IP ownership questions around these items.
Please let me know when you are ready to start the IP clearance
process.  Taking these contributions through that process would be
enough for me to lift this specific veto.  Further, I will probably be
voting +1 on accepting the features via that process (although some
require dev list consensus actually be achieved before I'd agree).

If there is an argument to be made that my veto vote is inappropriate
for any of the issues noted above, please feel free to make it.

I'm sorry that this seems heavy handed, but it's important that we
follow a good community development model.

-chip

Mime
View raw message