> > 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 documentation has a Citrix copyright page. > I am not sure of the legal ramifications, but I know that Citrix always > intended > for our doc source files (minus any Citrix-specific differences) to be part of > the ACS project. > > > > Still waiting to know where to post the contributions so they can be put > through the same process as the rest of that code from CP 3.0.6... > > Your people.a.o personal web space, review board, attached to the jira, or > somewhere else. It's completely up to you.
How to use people.a.o? I spent 15 minutes but could not figure out any portal to login, though I did see my name in committer list > > > > > 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 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 > > > >
