incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benson Margulies <>
Subject Re: Shipping binary file in CloudStack release
Date Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:32:15 GMT
Bertrand, is a compressed archive of source a source or a binary?

On Oct 29, 2012, at 11:28 AM, Noah Slater <> wrote:

> Nice summary Bertrand.
> On 29 October 2012 15:22, Bertrand Delacretaz <>wrote:
>> Hi,
>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Chip Childers
>> <> wrote:
>>> ...Waf is a packaging utility, used to create RPMs and DEBs.  Work is
>>> currently ongoing to remove it (and it's use) from the project
>>> entirely...
>>> ...That will be several weeks of work (not days),
>>> which is significantly longer than the community's desire to get a
>>> first podling release out the door...
>> I don't think any Incubator PMC member is asking you to remove that
>> dependency, as I see it the only issue is that you are currently
>> aiming to release in in binary form.
>>> ...It's one line of bytecode within a file that is not core to the
>>> project itself ...
>> I don't think the issue is how big or how small that thing is: we do
>> not release binaries, see
>> So IMO your options now are:
>> a) Fix the problem and recut your release without that binary. Make it
>> a separate -deps convenience package.
> I concur with Chip that this would come with a non-negligible cost to
> community spirit at this point. We've already been through a few rounds. I
> would +0 this is the community wanted to do it, but I would also
> be disappointed that we had to stop the release for something so minor.
>> b) Come up with a documented plan (issue in your tracker for example)
>> for how you're going to remove it from future releases, and still try
>> to get this release through.
> Given the relative unimportance, and size, of the file in question, I would
> be willing to cast a binding +1 vote (as mentor and very new member of the
> Incubator PMC) on this, if we would say for definite that we remove this
> problem for the next release. But I was looking for some confirmation from
> this list that this is OK.
>> c) Try to convince us that such things are not really important, which
>> does not seem successful so far.
> Yes, I don't think that's going to happen.
>> IMO, doing a) will get you immediate +1s. It's not uncommon for
>> podling releases to go through a few iterations before being accepted,
>> so I'm not sure what the problem with creating a separate -deps
>> package is.
>> Choosing b) or c) lowers your chances for mentors and Incubator PMC to
>> give their +1s to the release.
>> -Bertrand
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> --
> NS

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message