Sure, Animesh.
Thank you
-Radhika
-Original Message-
From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 11:13 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [ACS41] Concerns about where development has happened
Radhika
Now
'
Subject: RE: [ACS41] Concerns about where development has happened
Radhika
We can tie in your documentation work with corresponding feature's IP
clearance review
https://reviews.apache.org/r/8812/ is linked to Sheng's
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-306
https
clearance.
Thanks
Animesh
-Original Message-
From: Radhika Puthiyetath [mailto:radhika.puthiyet...@citrix.com]
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 10:47 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [ACS41] Concerns about where development has happened
Thanks Animesh. I do
For the reverts, do we wait until javelin merge is done?
Animesh
-Original Message-
From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com]
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 12:10 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [ACS41] Concerns about where development has
before doing his merge. Alex (others), what's your opinion?
-chip
-Original Message-
From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com]
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 12:10 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [ACS41] Concerns about where development has happened
I thought that we had agreed that Chiradeep's network refactoring was
going to merge into master first, and he's waiting for the reverts
before doing his merge. Alex (others), what's your opinion?
Chip,
We've looked at the effects from the reverts on javelin. I think the main
problem is
I tried to do the revert for 306 myself, trying several different
strategies and I was unable to make progress.
On 1/14/13 10:55 AM, Alex Huang alex.hu...@citrix.com wrote:
I thought that we had agreed that Chiradeep's network refactoring was
going to merge into master first, and he's
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Alex Huang alex.hu...@citrix.com wrote:
I thought that we had agreed that Chiradeep's network refactoring was
going to merge into master first, and he's waiting for the reverts
before doing his merge. Alex (others), what's your opinion?
Chip,
We've looked
: [ACS41] Concerns about where development has happened
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Alex Huang alex.hu...@citrix.com wrote:
I thought that we had agreed that Chiradeep's network refactoring was
going to merge into master first, and he's waiting for the reverts
before doing his merge. Alex
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com wrote:
I have asked Murali to revert CS-312. India has a holiday on Monday, it
should be reverted by tomorrow
Animesh
Gotcha. My Indian colleagues weren't on holiday, otherwise I would
have realized that.
.
Thanks
Animesh
-Original Message-
From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com]
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 11:02 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [ACS41] Concerns about where development has happened
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Alex Huang
[mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com]
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 11:02 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [ACS41] Concerns about where development has happened
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Alex Huang alex.hu...@citrix.com wrote:
I thought that we had agreed
-Original Message-
From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com]
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 11:35 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [ACS41] Concerns about where development has happened
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [ACS41] Concerns about where development has happened
-Original Message-
From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com]
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 11:35 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [ACS41] Concerns about
Kinsella [mailto:j...@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
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
Jessica T.
-Original Message-
From: John Kinsella [mailto:j...@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
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Frank Zhang frank.zh...@citrix.com wrote:
On Jan 14, 2013, at 7:12 PM, Jessica Tomechak jessica.tomec...@citrix.com
wrote:
John,
No, the Apache license doesn't appear in the published Citrix
CloudPlatform documentation. It's inside our source files, which
wrote:
On Jan 14, 2013, at 7:12 PM, Jessica Tomechak
jessica.tomec...@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
@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [ACS41] Concerns about where development has happened
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Frank Zhang frank.zh...@citrix.com wrote:
On Jan 14, 2013, at 7:12 PM, Jessica Tomechak
jessica.tomec...@citrix.com
wrote:
John,
No, the Apache license doesn't appear
Puthiyetath [mailto:radhika.puthiyet...@citrix.com]
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 6:25 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [ACS41] Concerns about where development has happened
Hi David,
How is the workflow for non-committers ?
I do not have the credential to log in to A.O
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Chip Childers
chip.child...@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
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Chip Childers
chip.child...@sungard.com wrote:
CLOUDSTACK-306
42c8c73ab6437d86578f7f6d7b48a96a2de29bec
177e157cbfa40af82de628cb00876678d7646d2d
717f9dcd4d25e2a3ccf12598d16cc5d81fd880a9
CLOUDSTACK-312
7fcfcdf91e49d64375171c9ae7fe61067aa59b6e
Sheng and Murali,
Due to the nature of the commits below (CLOUDSTACK-306 and
CLOUDSTACK-312), and where the master branch HEAD is currently,
reverting these commits is non-trivial for me to have faith in getting
right.
Prior to us moving forward with these features coming through IP
clearance, I
] Concerns about where development has happened
Sheng and Murali,
Due to the nature of the commits below (CLOUDSTACK-306 and CLOUDSTACK-
312), and where the master branch HEAD is currently, reverting these commits
is non-trivial for me to have faith in getting right.
Prior to us moving forward
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Chip Childers
chip.child...@sungard.com wrote:
IMO, no. I want the first issue resolved first (revert the code that
shouldn't be in the repo). Then we can talk about accepting the
donation proposal I assume is coming.
But this is just my opinion. Anyone
: Friday, January 11, 2013 11:07 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [ACS41] Concerns about where development has happened
Sheng and Murali,
Due to the nature of the commits below (CLOUDSTACK-306 and CLOUDSTACK-
312), and where the master branch HEAD is currently, reverting
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 2:40 PM, David Nalley da...@gnsa.us wrote:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Chip Childers
chip.child...@sungard.com wrote:
IMO, no. I want the first issue resolved first (revert the code that
shouldn't be in the repo). Then we can talk about accepting the
donation
...@sungard.com]
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 12:10 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [ACS41] Concerns about where development has happened
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 2:40 PM, David Nalley da...@gnsa.us wrote:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Chip Childers
chip.child...@sungard.com
: 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
-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
and complicated to unwind.
Any suggestions?
--Alex
-Original Message-
From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com]
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 12:10 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [ACS41] Concerns about where development has happened
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013
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.chaturv...@citrix.com wrote:
As suggested by community Citrix will go through IP clearance process. I am
updating identified
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.chaturv...@citrix.com wrote:
As suggested by community Citrix will go through IP clearance process. I am
updating
: Re: [ACS41] Concerns about where development has happened
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com wrote:
As suggested by community Citrix will go through IP clearance process. I am
updating identified defects with more contextual information
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:00 AM, Murali Reddy murali.re...@citrix.com wrote:
On 09/01/13 8:36 PM, Chip Childers chip.child...@sungard.com wrote:
CLOUDSTACK-777
This is in the CloudPlatform 3.0.6 release
Docs already submitted, but no FS available.
Unable to find dev list discussion
I believe
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 9:24 PM, David Nalley da...@gnsa.us wrote:
So I figured I'd add some additional thoughts. There are process
problems, and if you want to understand why we consider this so
important, take a look at this post[1] by Brett Porter from a few
months back. IMO getting the
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
So, we have nearly 1500 lines of code changes committed in CLOUDSTACK-306.
There's 10 people related to the issues listed below, I believe they're all
from the same employer.
Folks, this is hindering our process to graduate to a top level Apache project.
The first few times it's an honest
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:51 PM, John Kinsella j...@stratosec.co wrote:
So, we have nearly 1500 lines of code changes committed in CLOUDSTACK-306.
There's 10 people related to the issues listed below, I believe they're
all from the same employer.
Folks, this is hindering our process to
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
So I figured I'd add some additional thoughts. There are process
problems, and if you want to understand why we consider this so
important, take a look at this post[1] by Brett Porter from a few
months back. IMO getting the process right is vital to our success as
a project, but it isn't the only
On 09/01/13 8:36 PM, Chip Childers chip.child...@sungard.com wrote:
CLOUDSTACK-777
This is in the CloudPlatform 3.0.6 release
Docs already submitted, but no FS available.
Unable to find dev list discussion
I believe reporter of CLOUDSTACK-777 mistakenly opened duplicate of the
bug [1]. FS for
43 matches
Mail list logo
