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.tomec...@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.child...@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.chaturv...@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.child...@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
