Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAPaJBx5NQb_D4XO4wi+S2J8Jy5K9bGVe2AFm6F1JMH33A+r+dg@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAPaJBx5NQb_D4XO4wi+S2J8Jy5K9bGVe2AFm6F1JMH33A+r+dg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:21:28 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CA+96GG4EWANZrywOOnejwRNonvKn-3cCo56Bw_RLrnLdYM=KZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Shipping binary file in CloudStack release
From: Chip Childers <chip.childers@sungard.com>
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi all,

I'm the RM for the release, so I wanted to provide some context to
Noah's question.  Some of this has already been mentioned on the
project's vote thread, but I'll bring it up again here to see if there
are any thoughts to help us decide if this is a blocker or not.  At
this point, I'm holding the vote thread open after 7 days of voting
(with a current +1 count of 5 PPMC votes, 4 mentors, and another 16
community votes - with no -1's or 0's), until I get a better feel for
the level of concern on this issue.

Here's the background:

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, so we're not doing something that isn't already targeted for
being undone as fast as possible.   The challenge we have as a
community is that the removal of Waf will require a pretty heavy
amount of development time and another full round of functional /
regression testing.  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 (our original goal was for the end
of the summer).

And here's my current thinking:

It's one line of bytecode within a file that is not core to the
project itself (it's only a build utility), that has a clearly marked
license for file itself (so distribution is OK from a licensing
standpoint), that is only used as a quick way to create packages for
Linux distros (not to do the actual project builds), and that will be
ignored by any distro packagers that want to create proper RPMs / DEBs
anyway.

IMO, this does not represent a serious enough issue to block a
release.  As far as I understand the point of the incubation process,
this is the place where minor issues can be addressed over time.  (I'm
new to ASF,  so please do correct me if I'm wrong about that.)

I actually have more than enough votes right now to close the thread
out on the project's dev list, and open up a vote for the IPMC.  That
being said, I'm new to ASF and want us to get things right.  I
certainly don't want to use formalities like the voting rules process
to push past something that actually is a major problem, but I really
don't want to abort the vote due to what I personally view as a minor
issue.  It will potentially cause harm to the community, which has
been developing very nicely over the last several months.

Anyway, that's what we're struggling with.  Looking forward to your opinions...

-chip

On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:
> Hey,
>
> We're just voting on our first release, and I spotted this file in the root
> of the source:
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-cloudstack.git;a=blob_plain;f=waf;hb=HEAD
>
> It seems to be a sort of hybrid source/binary file. Very strange.
>
> Can we ship this?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> NS

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org