Re: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator
Hello, Looks to be an interesting project!. I'd like to help so I have added myself as a mentor. 2012/4/3 Kevin Kluge kevin.kl...@citrix.com: Hi All, We would like to propose CloudStack to be an Apache Incubator project. CloudStack provides control plane software that can be used to create an IaaS cloud. It includes an HTTP-based API for user and administrator functions and a web UI for user and administrator access. Administrators can provision physical infrastructure (e.g., servers, network elements, storage) into an instance of CloudStack, while end users can use the CloudStack self-service API and UI for the provisioning and management of virtual machines, virtual disks, and virtual networks. Additional information is available at http://cloudstack.org/ and http://docs.cloudstack.org/. The draft proposal document is available at http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/CloudStackProposal. There are a few incomplete sections in the proposal. We have left XXX marks by those as reminders, and we'll complete those sections in the next few days as the proposal evolves. We're excited about the opportunity to work with ASF and the community to create an Incubator project for cloud orchestration. We'll welcome all feedback on the proposal. Thanks. -kevin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Olivier Lamy Talend: http://coders.talend.com http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release MRUnit version 0.9.0-incubating
On 4 April 2012 02:09, Brock Noland br...@cloudera.com wrote: This is an incubator release for Apache MRUnit, version 0.9.0-incubating. It fixes the following issues: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311292version=12316360 *** Please download, test and vote by [3 working days after sending]. Note that we are voting upon the source (tag), binaries are provided for convenience. Source and binary files: http://people.apache.org/~brock/mrunit-0.9.0-incubating-candidate-0 Maven staging repo: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachemrunit-012/ The tag to be voted upon: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/mrunit/tags/release-0.9.0-incubating/ There's a NOTICE.txt and NOTICE-src.txt at the top level. IMO the primary NOTICE file should be for the source. MRUnit's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/mrunit/dist/KEYS Note that the Incubator PMC needs to vote upon the release after a successful PPMC vote before any release can be made official. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator
Hi... On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Martijn Dashorst martijn.dasho...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Kevin Kluge kevin.kl...@citrix.com wrote: Citrix is pursuing patents based on prior CloudStack work and expects to continue to do so in the future. Citrix is getting these patents to protect the CloudStack user community. Consider the case where some other entity states that the use of CloudStack is infringing on their patents. Citrix could use these patents to fight this entity and defend the community. An incremental benefit is that if Citrix (or any other CloudStack-friendly entity) has a patent then that patent cannot be acquired by an unfriendly entity. Anyone with about $15B can buy Citrix, and start wreaking havoc with the patents. See Google with its acquisition of Motorola, or Oracle with its acquisition of Sun (Java?). Or Citrix can sell its patent portfolio to a shell company, keeping a license and let the shell start suing the rest of the world (see Apple, Microsoft etc). There are many avenues to abuse the patents. I read section 3 of [1], and AFAIU and if the above scenario hold does this mean that such company X can sue ASF for example ? Sorry if it is a stupid question but I am no lawyer at all :). [1]- http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html Martijn - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Thanks - Mohammad Nour Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving - Albert Einstein
Re: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Mohammad Nour El-Din nour.moham...@gmail.com wrote: Hi... On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Martijn Dashorst martijn.dasho...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Kevin Kluge kevin.kl...@citrix.com wrote: Citrix is pursuing patents based on prior CloudStack work and expects to continue to do so in the future. Citrix is getting these patents to protect the CloudStack user community. Consider the case where some other entity states that the use of CloudStack is infringing on their patents. Citrix could use these patents to fight this entity and defend the community. An incremental benefit is that if Citrix (or any other CloudStack-friendly entity) has a patent then that patent cannot be acquired by an unfriendly entity. Anyone with about $15B can buy Citrix, and start wreaking havoc with the patents. See Google with its acquisition of Motorola, or Oracle with its acquisition of Sun (Java?). Or Citrix can sell its patent portfolio to a shell company, keeping a license and let the shell start suing the rest of the world (see Apple, Microsoft etc). There are many avenues to abuse the patents. I read section 3 of [1], and AFAIU and if the above scenario hold does this mean that such company X can sue ASF for example ? IANAL either but I can at least gauge this much from the PR side. If a commercial entity decides to sue the ASF, a highly respected, non-profit organization (charity), it will be the mother of all negative PR campaigns: an instant kiss of death IMHO. Once kissed, you first turn into an ugly SCO-like toad. Then you die a slow miserable lonely death that everyone looks forward to. I think any company in their right mind would consider this PR dimension and the impact that the action will inevitably have on their image before deciding to litigate against the ASF. Sorry if it is a stupid question but I am no lawyer at all :). Not stupid at all and perhaps someone can answer this for the both of us. However I presume the worst for safety sake, you can always be litigated against :-). But the best policy is good citizenship and diplomacy on our part, which we've done well as a Foundation. That's why we have the respect in the general community. This is why even if someone has a valid legal case against us, the PR dimension will most likely thwart litigation. -- Best Regards, -- Alex
Re: [VOTE] Release MRUnit version 0.9.0-incubating
Hi, On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:33 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: The tag to be voted upon: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/mrunit/tags/release-0.9.0-incubating/ There's a NOTICE.txt and NOTICE-src.txt at the top level. IMO the primary NOTICE file should be for the source. So there would be a NOTICE-bin.txt and a NOTICE.txt? Brock - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release MRUnit version 0.9.0-incubating
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:13 AM, Brock Noland br...@cloudera.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:33 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: The tag to be voted upon: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/mrunit/tags/release-0.9.0-incubating/ There's a NOTICE.txt and NOTICE-src.txt at the top level. IMO the primary NOTICE file should be for the source. So there would be a NOTICE-bin.txt and a NOTICE.txt? The Apache License 2.0 only makes mention of a NOTICE file, not NOTICE-bin (or NOTICE-src). The top priority is that the NOTICE[.txt] file in the canonical source release be correct and complete. That's what we're voting on and what the ASF is endorsing. I haven't yet arrived at a position regarding the -bin/-deps situation. At this point, I wouldn't -1 a source release that contains irrelevant and misleading information in a file called NOTICE-bin.txt about dependencies which are not present, but that could change. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: CloudStack Incubation proposal
On Apr 3, 2012, at 1:31 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Apr 3, 2012, at 3:27 PM, Andreas Kuckartz wrote: On 03.04.2012 20:10, Jim Jagielski wrote: Oh come on... 1st of all, it's a joke. One I do not find funny at all. You should have. It was funny. Maybe you need a funny bone transplant? And 2ndly, people could complain that we should refuse the donation and force them to put all their code/energies into OpenStack... CloudStack and OpenStack seem to be complementary and they use the same license. I expect collaboration between these projects to increase not decrease. LO and AOOo are complementary and they are setup so that code can move in a very Pro-LO direction. I would like collaboration between these projects to increase not decrease. There is a post on Wired that discusses the split between CloudStack and OpenStack. [1] Regards, Dave [1] http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/04/citrix-cloudstack/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: CloudStack Incubation proposal
And we could simply ignore all this, as there was never any actual intent to assume an analogous situation. It was a flip comment. That's all. Please stop reading more into things, and escalating discussions. Have fun. Move along. -g On Apr 4, 2012 11:47 AM, Mohammad Nour El-Din nour.moham...@gmail.com wrote: Hi... On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Apr 3, 2012, at 1:31 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Apr 3, 2012, at 3:27 PM, Andreas Kuckartz wrote: On 03.04.2012 20:10, Jim Jagielski wrote: Oh come on... 1st of all, it's a joke. One I do not find funny at all. You should have. It was funny. Maybe you need a funny bone transplant? And 2ndly, people could complain that we should refuse the donation and force them to put all their code/energies into OpenStack... CloudStack and OpenStack seem to be complementary and they use the same license. I expect collaboration between these projects to increase not decrease. LO and AOOo are complementary and they are setup so that code can move in a very Pro-LO direction. I would like collaboration between these projects to increase not decrease. There is a post on Wired that discusses the split between CloudStack and OpenStack. [1] Regards, Dave [1] http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/04/citrix-cloudstack/ I read that link and IMHO: 1- I believe there is no problem that Citrix didn't find it self in OpenStack community and they looked into other open source communities into which they can invest their expertise and technology and also invest in building a community around that by donating that code to ASF 2- These kinds of splits I believe it happens all the time and no harm about it at all more specifically it has been mentioned that the split was a clean one and no problems emerged as a consequence 3- I don't think at all that donating CloudStack to ASF can be looked at as starting a *war* between open source cloud stacks in a bad way, on contrary I believe that different open source communities compete among each other in the good meaning of the word which is the main engine behind open source innovation that each community tries to produce the best they can 4- If what is said is that article and other related articles is true [1], that CloudStack is more mature and stable than OpenStack, then I believe that is good for ASF to have CloudStack Referrals to AOO and problems and challenges happened at that time as accepting the donation of such big project, I think we now have a better opportunity to deal better with the case of CloudStack because we can learn from what happened back at the time of AOO That said I believe it is better to focus on the proposal and the challenges we have when/if accepting CloudStack, which I believe that we should accept such proposal [1] - http://blogs.gartner.com/lydia_leong/2012/04/03/citrix-cloudstack-openstack-and-the-war-for-open-source-clouds/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Thanks - Mohammad Nour Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving - Albert Einstein
Re: CloudStack Incubation proposal
On Apr 4, 2012, at 8:54 AM, Greg Stein wrote: And we could simply ignore all this, as there was never any actual intent to assume an analogous situation. It was a flip comment. That's all. Please stop reading more into things, and escalating discussions. One might test if the analogy holds. It clearly does not past the superficial level. With CloudStack there is no legacy of 2 decades of infrastructure with no overview. There is no decade as an Open Source project. There is no fork trouble. I do think it is pertinent to pay attention to the trade press and blogosphere. Have fun. Move along. Fun! Here's to it. Regards, Dave -g On Apr 4, 2012 11:47 AM, Mohammad Nour El-Din nour.moham...@gmail.com wrote: Hi... On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Apr 3, 2012, at 1:31 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Apr 3, 2012, at 3:27 PM, Andreas Kuckartz wrote: On 03.04.2012 20:10, Jim Jagielski wrote: Oh come on... 1st of all, it's a joke. One I do not find funny at all. You should have. It was funny. Maybe you need a funny bone transplant? And 2ndly, people could complain that we should refuse the donation and force them to put all their code/energies into OpenStack... CloudStack and OpenStack seem to be complementary and they use the same license. I expect collaboration between these projects to increase not decrease. LO and AOOo are complementary and they are setup so that code can move in a very Pro-LO direction. I would like collaboration between these projects to increase not decrease. There is a post on Wired that discusses the split between CloudStack and OpenStack. [1] Regards, Dave [1] http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/04/citrix-cloudstack/ I read that link and IMHO: 1- I believe there is no problem that Citrix didn't find it self in OpenStack community and they looked into other open source communities into which they can invest their expertise and technology and also invest in building a community around that by donating that code to ASF 2- These kinds of splits I believe it happens all the time and no harm about it at all more specifically it has been mentioned that the split was a clean one and no problems emerged as a consequence 3- I don't think at all that donating CloudStack to ASF can be looked at as starting a *war* between open source cloud stacks in a bad way, on contrary I believe that different open source communities compete among each other in the good meaning of the word which is the main engine behind open source innovation that each community tries to produce the best they can 4- If what is said is that article and other related articles is true [1], that CloudStack is more mature and stable than OpenStack, then I believe that is good for ASF to have CloudStack Referrals to AOO and problems and challenges happened at that time as accepting the donation of such big project, I think we now have a better opportunity to deal better with the case of CloudStack because we can learn from what happened back at the time of AOO That said I believe it is better to focus on the proposal and the challenges we have when/if accepting CloudStack, which I believe that we should accept such proposal [1] - http://blogs.gartner.com/lydia_leong/2012/04/03/citrix-cloudstack-openstack-and-the-war-for-open-source-clouds/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Thanks - Mohammad Nour Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving - Albert Einstein - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator
The proposal looks good. I'm excited that the community is looking to grow at the ASF. I'm working on similar technology in my day job at IBM and am interested in getting involved. Happy to mentor if you need, although, it has quite a large list now as I look at the Wiki. Matt Hogstrom m...@hogstrom.org A Day Without Nuclear Fusion Is a Day Without Sunshine On Apr 3, 2012, at 1:17 PM, Kevin Kluge wrote: Hi All, We would like to propose CloudStack to be an Apache Incubator project. CloudStack provides control plane software that can be used to create an IaaS cloud. It includes an HTTP-based API for user and administrator functions and a web UI for user and administrator access. Administrators can provision physical infrastructure (e.g., servers, network elements, storage) into an instance of CloudStack, while end users can use the CloudStack self-service API and UI for the provisioning and management of virtual machines, virtual disks, and virtual networks. Additional information is available at http://cloudstack.org/ and http://docs.cloudstack.org/. The draft proposal document is available at http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/CloudStackProposal. There are a few incomplete sections in the proposal. We have left XXX marks by those as reminders, and we'll complete those sections in the next few days as the proposal evolves. We're excited about the opportunity to work with ASF and the community to create an Incubator project for cloud orchestration. We'll welcome all feedback on the proposal. Thanks. -kevin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: [VOTE] Release Jena LARQ 1.0.0-incubating
Thank you Leo, thank you Benson. We still need one vote, I think... Cheers, Paolo Leo Simons wrote: On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Paolo Castagna castagna.li...@googlemail.com wrote: here is a vote on a release for Apache Jena LARQ module: jena-larq-1.0.0-incubating. ... Proposed files and structure to merge with existing dist/ area: http://people.apache.org/~castagna/merge-jena-larq-1.0.0-RC-1/ +1 cheers, Leo - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Alex Karasulu akaras...@apache.org wrote: On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Matt Hogstrom m...@hogstrom.org wrote: The proposal looks good. I'm excited that the community is looking to grow at the ASF. I'm working on similar technology in my day job at IBM and am interested in getting involved. Happy to mentor if you need, although, it has quite a large list now as I look at the Wiki. The number of mentors should not be an issue. As stated before, in other threads, the number of mentors is unbounded and AOO has 8 as an example. The perspective podling should not feel that the list is too long - more mentors and interest is a good thing. We have much to do, the project is not small, and it would be nice to see the community gracefully pass thru incubation as fast as posible in accordance with incubator standards. More mentors might help in this regard. Indeed -- Best Regards, -- Alex -- Thanks - Mohammad Nour Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving - Albert Einstein
Re: [VOTE] Release MRUnit version 0.9.0-incubating
On 4 April 2012 15:33, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:13 AM, Brock Noland br...@cloudera.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:33 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: The tag to be voted upon: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/mrunit/tags/release-0.9.0-incubating/ There's a NOTICE.txt and NOTICE-src.txt at the top level. IMO the primary NOTICE file should be for the source. So there would be a NOTICE-bin.txt and a NOTICE.txt? The Apache License 2.0 only makes mention of a NOTICE file, not NOTICE-bin (or NOTICE-src). The top priority is that the NOTICE[.txt] file in the canonical source release be correct and complete. That's what we're voting on and what the ASF is endorsing. +1 I haven't yet arrived at a position regarding the -bin/-deps situation. At this point, I wouldn't -1 a source release that contains irrelevant and misleading information in a file called NOTICE-bin.txt about dependencies which are not present, but that could change. So long as the file is called NOTICE.txt (or NOTICE) and is at the top-level of a binary archive, it does not matter what it is called in SVN. To avoid confusion, probably best to rename or move the version of the NOTICE file for binary releases. Since the binary file is just an extended version of the source NOTICE file (at least in this case), the binary version could be generated by concatenation. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator
Leo, thanks for the feedback, I've put a few replies in line. -Original Message- From: Leo Simons [mailto:m...@leosimons.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 9:31 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Kevin Kluge kevin.kl...@citrix.com wrote: The draft proposal document is available at http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/CloudStackProposal. Looks great! Also looks like you've got plenty of interest, so that's also great :-) Some random thoughts: * It reads like you have some interesting amount of work ahead of you dealing with the legal side of things, but y'all did a very good of explaining it in the proposal I think. K Thanks. We'll have the source and binary dependencies documented shortly. There are a couple of things around BSD-derivative licenses that aren't clear to me. It's good to have mentors. :) * I think the way that you deal with having debian as a dependency is fine; I am also assuming there's nothing _that_ fundamental about the use of debian that someone could not replace it with something different. K I'm glad to hear that. This was a concern point for me. A previous version of CloudStack used Fedora for the system VM OS, so it can certainly be changed between Linux flavors. It should be possible to switch to a BSD variant, but it would be a fair bit more work, and I'm not sure what kind of i/o throughput would be achieved on the various hypervisors in that case. * I suspect the most challenging GPL dependency could be mysql if you use a lot of mysql-specific features. Fortunately, Apache APR has already come up with a good model for how to limit the licensing dependency on GPL databases, while still allowing the 99% of the people that want to use them to do so (see http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/apr/apr/trunk/README ). K thanks, also very helpful. CloudStack uses very few, if any, MySQL-specific features. * I don't think it is *needed* to have a full plan for how you deal with every single dependency in the proposal. That sounds like a lot of work. Having such a plan is of course good, but aside from that, you already have a good plan for a plan and I think that'd be good enough to start incubation with. * Something similar is probably true for the mentioned website(s) -- assuming they don't involve loads and loads of traffic or scary spam-ridden user forums, it is fine to list them as things-to-do and then tackle the finer details of it during the incubation process, it sounds like some of this stuff will take a while. OTOH if you're shipping thousands of VM images out to people every day, infra may want to say something about that...but that doesn't seem to be the case :) K no, not at all. The only meaningful traffic for CloudStack occurs from binary download of the software and the download of the built system VM, which occurs roughly once per installation. cheers, Leo - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (PODLINGNAMESEARCH-6) Establish whether Apache Etch is a suitable name
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-6?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13246923#comment-13246923 ] Shane Curcuru commented on PODLINGNAMESEARCH-6: --- This looks like a good search, and so far none of the existing finds are closely enough related to be of particular concern. Anyone else have any comments or concerns about approving this? Establish whether Apache Etch is a suitable name -- Key: PODLINGNAMESEARCH-6 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-6 Project: Podling Suitable Names Search Issue Type: Suitable Name Search Reporter: scott comer -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
