Mailing-List: contact cloudstack-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com
 designates 66.165.176.63 as permitted sender)
From: Animesh Chaturvedi <animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com>
To: "cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org"
	<cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 14:38:27 -0800
Subject: RE: Summary of why where and how development happens matters
Thread-Topic: Summary of why where and how development happens matters
Thread-Index: Ac4WAY1RIXhauVY9S5Oz0TQXcLSOtQAAhWuA
Message-ID: 
 <7A92FF96DF135843B4B608FB576BFC3E012F74C418E9@SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
References: <20130227185128.GX81779@USLT-205755.sungardas.corp>
 <20130228061538.GF2058@cloud-2.local>
 <CAKprHVYHQ1by9DA_BqYT5rU6am4qnEBCKknH9TuJXaoYQkBAMA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130228063035.GI2058@cloud-2.local>
 <9C992E2C-77E1-4A9C-ABAB-BDFD8F7E214F@basho.com>
In-Reply-To: <9C992E2C-77E1-4A9C-ABAB-BDFD8F7E214F@basho.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

John, I agree we need to merge in logical chunks sooner rather than later t=
hat allows for reviews and feedback sooner.=20

Chip I can take the first stab at putting this in a wiki but would require =
collaboration with you and Alex  to get it crisp and clear

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Burwell [mailto:jburwell@basho.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 2:18 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Summary of why where and how development happens
> matters
>=20
> All,
>=20
> I would also like to add to a thought to the specific example given by Al=
ex.  I
> think we need to approach feature design and implementation in a manner
> that does not produce 3 months of effort before it can merged into master=
.
> Regardless of where work occurs, 3 months of work (and the associated
> 1000s of lines of code) going unintegrated is a significant project risk.
>=20
> Thanks,
> -John
>=20
> On Feb 28, 2013, at 1:30 AM, Prasanna Santhanam <tsp@apache.org> wrote:
>=20
> > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:52:28AM +0530, David Nalley wrote:
> >> On Feb 27, 2013 10:16 PM, "Prasanna Santhanam" <tsp@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 12:21:28AM +0530, Chip Childers wrote:
> >>>> The TL;DR version:
> >>>>
> >>>> The issue that we ran into with several features being developed
> >>>> "outside the community" for 4.1 was a major deal, and it had
> >>>> several implications.  First, doing that effectively hurts our
> >>>> community.  The other issue is related to the legal right of the
> >>>> project to accept the code developed elsewhere.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Ok - I read *all* of it and still have a lingering question:
> >>>
> >>> What happens to code/docs etc that is released by a commercial
> >>> entity re-branding ACS with the ASF license before it is released as
> >>> an official ACS release?  Said code was developed per the community
> >>> guidelines but just was released before the ACS code was released.
> >>> Is that okay?
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Prasanna.,
> >>
> >> That is okay.
> >> We don't care what people do with ACS code. We care that code that
> >> comes into ACS is developed here.
> >
> > Thanks David - everything looks good otherwise.
> >
> > --
> > Prasanna.,