> -----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 > <animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> wrote: > > Ok to summarize for 306 we will not revert the changes at this time because > of technical issues. 306 will still have to go through the IP clearance > process > and will be dropped if it does not pass the clearance. Please expect a > separate > thread on IP clearance for 306 once Sheng posts the code. > > > > My opinion isn't the only one here though... so someone else can feel free to > completely disagree and push for the revert to happen. > [Animesh>] Yes of course
> > > >> -----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 <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 at the effects from the reverts on javelin. I think > >> > the main > >> problem is the commits for bug 306. This one is particularly bad > >> because its fixes are intertwined now with the api_refactoring merge > >> and it's difficult to for us to see a way out of this one. We like > >> to ask the community for an exception for this bug on technical > >> reasons for this one problem. I talked with Chiradeep and he's okay with > that as well for the network refactoring branch. > >> > > >> > If for some reason the fixes for this bug cannot pass ip clearance > >> > then we'll > >> just have to deal with it. > >> > > >> > All the other reverts, we're fine with absorbing in javelin. > >> > >> I can accept that, as long as we all understand that we can't release > >> any code from master (or any other branch that includes those > >> commits) until that code has been accepted via IP clearance. We're > >> just talking about CLOUDSTACK-306 commits though, right? If we don't > >> pass the IP clearance process for that code, then we will have to > >> stop until we get it pulled out. Hopefully that won't happen though. > >> > >> For the CLOUDSTACK-312 commits, any update on reverting them Murali? > >> > >> > >> > --Alex > >> > > >
