Animesh, We should give the community some time to respond before making it so. Let's take the standard 72 hours to get feedback.
--Alex > -----Original Message----- > From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com] > Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 11:39 AM > To: cloudstack-dev@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 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 > > >> > > > >
