I started a separate thread [IP Clearance] Potential issues. The first post has summary of potential issues, please review
> -----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 > >
