incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Frank Zhang <Frank.Zh...@citrix.com>
Subject RE: [ACS41] Concerns about where development has happened
Date Tue, 15 Jan 2013 00:45:59 GMT
> 
> On Jan 14, 2013, at 7:12 PM, Jessica Tomechak <Jessica.Tomechak@citrix.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > John,
> > No, the Apache license doesn't appear in the published Citrix
> CloudPlatform documentation. It's inside our source files, which are seen
> only by the writers. The published documentation has a Citrix copyright page.
> I am not sure of the legal ramifications, but I know that Citrix always intended
> for our doc source files (minus any Citrix-specific differences) to be part of
> the ACS project.
> >
> > Still waiting to know where to post the contributions so they can be put
> through the same process as the rest of that code from CP 3.0.6...
> 
> Your people.a.o personal web space, review board, attached to the jira, or
> somewhere else. It's completely up to you.


How to use people.a.o? I spent 15 minutes but could not figure out any portal to login, though
I did see my name in committer list

> 
> >
> > Jessica T.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Kinsella [mailto:jlk@stratosec.co]
> > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 3:41 PM
> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [ACS41] Concerns about where development has happened
> >
> > Innocent question, bare with me: These bits which we're discussing that
> were developed outside the ASF repo - they weren't distributed in
> CloudPlatform with an ASF copyright header, were they?
> >
> > On Jan 11, 2013, at 3:19 PM, Jessica Tomechak
> <Jessica.Tomechak@citrix.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The email below suggests all contributions should be made available for IP
> clearance and community acceptance in some well-known location. Also, it
> suggests that all existing documentation for the proposed contributions
> should be similarly available.
> >>
> >> I have some documentation that was written outside the ACS repo. I am
> happy to place it in any appropriate place for review. Where should it go? On
> the wiki, with the FS for the proposed feature? Attached to the feature bug's
> doc subtask? Or is the "outside" code going to be brought in through patches
> on Reviewboard?
> >>
> >> The docs I'm referring to are in .xml files with the Apache license up top
> and &PRODUCT; for the software name, and will build with the existing ACS
> /doc directory.
> >>
> >> Jessica T.
> >> CloudStack Tech Pubs
> >>
> >>
> >> -----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
> >
> > Stratosec - Secure Infrastructure as a Service
> > o: 415.315.9385
> > @johnlkinsella
> >
> >

Mime
View raw message