On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com wrote:
Folks since the liability of Release manager has been called out explicitly
for the release I want to call out that I cannot take personal liability for
a release and I am not sure why would anyone else
+1 well put.
On Feb 26, 2014, at 6:44 AM, Chip Childers chipchild...@apache.org wrote:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com wrote:
Folks since the liability of Release manager has been called out explicitly
for the release I want to call out
+1 this is reasonable.
On 26/02/14 8:14 pm, Chip Childers chipchild...@apache.org wrote:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com wrote:
Folks since the liability of Release manager has been called out
explicitly for the release I want to call out that
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com wrote:
I am still not convinced or comfortable with release manager's liability for
release content. It seems
we are going with practical approach but since legality has been called out
the legal instrument
: Saturday, February 22, 2014 12:34 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Policy blocker?
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 3:07 AM, Sebastien Goasguen run...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Feb 21, 2014, at 7:37 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com wrote:
-Original
...@gnsa.us]
Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2014 7:59 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Policy blocker?
Hi folks:
I think this issue is resolved in the 4.3 branch. The default build system no
longer seems to grab the mysql jar, and I've adjusted tomcat to load the
mysql
?
Regards,
Rayees
-Original Message-
From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us]
Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2014 7:59 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Policy blocker?
Hi folks:
I think this issue is resolved in the 4.3 branch. The default build
On Feb 21, 2014, at 7:37 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com
wrote:
-Original Message-
From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us]
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 4:13 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Policy blocker?
LEGAL - when I talk
@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Policy blocker?
LEGAL - when I talk about legal problems below I refer to liability
incurred by individuals in the project, especially the release
manager,
[Animesh] Can you clarify 'especially the release manager' part? Release
manager is just like any
Hi folks:
I think this issue is resolved in the 4.3 branch. The default build
system no longer seems to grab the mysql jar, and I've adjusted tomcat
to load the mysql jar from the system library.
Commit 0c2ad0338e34f6117cecc24ec00c7746dd481465 should have the
necessary changes.
I did some quick
: Saturday, February 22, 2014 7:59 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Policy blocker?
Hi folks:
I think this issue is resolved in the 4.3 branch. The default build system no
longer seems to grab the mysql jar, and I've adjusted tomcat to load the mysql
jar from the system library
On Feb 20, 2014, at 10:33 PM, Francois Gaudreault fgaudrea...@cloudops.com
wrote:
I find a little ironic that the internal policies are a lot more restrictive
than the Apache license itself :S
Meanwhile, isn't CloudStack falling into the MySQL FOSS exception?
/
-Original Message-
From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us]
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 12:24 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Policy blocker?
I will try to work on this a bit this evening, but others may be faster.
--David
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 1:44 PM
FOSS seems to apply to us but the question is whether Apache recognises that.
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Sebastien Goasguen run...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 20, 2014, at 10:33 PM, Francois Gaudreault fgaudrea...@cloudops.com
wrote:
I find a little ironic that the internal policies are
@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Policy blocker?
For DB HA we have included a new class StaticStrategy.java which is having
compile time dependency on mysql -connector-java.
I will make change in pom, as provided scope dependency instead of compile time
so that maven will not include in the bundle
@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Policy blocker?
For DB HA we have included a new class StaticStrategy.java which is having
compile time dependency on mysql -connector-java.
I will make change in pom, as provided scope dependency instead of compile time
so that maven will not include
[mailto:damoder.re...@citrix.com]
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 6:24 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: Animesh Chaturvedi
Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Policy blocker?
I have created a defect for this at:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-6152
I have put the patch in review board
@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: Animesh Chaturvedi
Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Policy blocker?
I have created a defect for this at:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-6152
I have put the patch in review board at : https://reviews.apache.org/r/18353/
Please review the same and commit
OK - so hoping to inject some clarification to this discussion - maybe
it will make more sense.
Lets start with definitions, and I'll try and use caps when referring
to this definitions.
LEGAL - when I talk about legal problems below I refer to liability
incurred by individuals in the project,
-Original Message-
From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us]
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 3:23 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Policy blocker?
OK - so hoping to inject some clarification to this discussion - maybe it will
make more sense.
Lets start
LEGAL - when I talk about legal problems below I refer to liability incurred
by
individuals in the project, especially the release manager,
[Animesh] Can you clarify 'especially the release manager' part? Release
manager is just like any other volunteer and does not have any special
-Original Message-
From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us]
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 4:13 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Policy blocker?
LEGAL - when I talk about legal problems below I refer to liability
incurred by individuals in the project
Hi folks,
I cringe to raise this issue. After 6 RCs I am sure we are all feeling
a little bit of release vote fatigue. Especially Animesh. I apologize
in advance; in all other respects I am ready to give a +1 to RC6.
I've been playing with 4.3.0-rc6 for a couple of days now. I attempted
to build
On 02/20/2014 02:37 PM, David Nalley wrote:
Hi folks,
I cringe to raise this issue. After 6 RCs I am sure we are all feeling
a little bit of release vote fatigue. Especially Animesh. I apologize
in advance; in all other respects I am ready to give a +1 to RC6.
My apologies, I didn't find the
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 08:37:46AM -0500, David Nalley wrote:
Hi folks,
I cringe to raise this issue. After 6 RCs I am sure we are all feeling
a little bit of release vote fatigue. Especially Animesh. I apologize
in advance; in all other respects I am ready to give a +1 to RC6.
I've been
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Chip Childers chipchild...@apache.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 08:37:46AM -0500, David Nalley wrote:
Hi folks,
I cringe to raise this issue. After 6 RCs I am sure we are all feeling
a little bit of release vote fatigue. Especially Animesh. I apologize
@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Policy blocker?
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Chip Childers chipchild...@apache.org
wrote:
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 08:37:46AM -0500, David Nalley wrote:
Hi folks,
I cringe to raise this issue. After 6 RCs I am sure we are all
feeling a little bit
volunteers
Thanks
Animesh
-Original Message-
From: Chip Childers [mailto:chipchild...@apache.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 10:13 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Policy blocker?
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Chip Childers chipchild...@apache.org
: Chip Childers [mailto:chipchild...@apache.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 10:13 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Policy blocker?
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Chip Childers
chipchild...@apache.org
wrote:
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 08:37:46AM -0500
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Nate Gordon nate.gor...@appcore.com wrote:
Will this cause issues with people running ACS from maven jetty (or any
other maven operation that needs the db) if the connector isn't pulled in
by the pom? I could see it being added to support that need. If they
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com wrote:
Chip, David thanks for the detailed explanation, is one of you taking care of
fixing this issue or we need to find other volunteers
I'm sorry to say that I do not have the available cycles. $dayjob +
Real quick, because I don't know if I will be able to track this
thread in detail starting tonight... Take this as input to the
discussion that the whole community needs to have about the
*potential* problem with the current situation.
Legal documentation as well as application of the valid
I may be wrong here, and far from being an expert at this, but isn't the
MariaDB connector doing the same thing, but under a Lesser GPL license?
Which would solve a lot of licensing issues (no need to put CloudStack
entirely on GPL).
FG
On 2/20/2014, 5:10 PM, Chip Childers wrote:
Real
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 9:10 PM, Francois Gaudreault
fgaudrea...@cloudops.com wrote:
I may be wrong here, and far from being an expert at this, but isn't the
MariaDB connector doing the same thing, but under a Lesser GPL license?
Which would solve a lot of licensing issues (no need to put
I find a little ironic that the internal policies are a lot more
restrictive than the Apache license itself :S
Meanwhile, isn't CloudStack falling into the MySQL FOSS exception?
http://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/foss-exception/
Francois
On 2/20/2014, 9:20 PM, David Nalley wrote:
On Feb 20, 2014, at 5:10 PM, Chip Childers chipchild...@apache.org wrote:
Real quick, because I don't know if I will be able to track this
thread in detail starting tonight... Take this as input to the
discussion that the whole community needs to have about the
*potential* problem with the
36 matches
Mail list logo
