+1 for James proposal: CloudStack has a strong momentum right now but the cloud space is evolving very fast and loosing momentum could mean a strong reversal of adoption. If moving to ASF is to delay CloudStack development cycle, then there is a big problem. Schedule must be more aggressive, not less.
My two cents, Patrice ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Kahn" <jk...@idea11.com.au> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 2:09:25 PM Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] releases going forward David, I'm not sure how this fits with the Apache model, but as a user of CloudStack, I would prefer that Citrix continue to release updates to 3.0.x until an Apache release is ready. Keeping momentum going with releases is important, especially when there are a few user affecting bugs (e.g. VNC, custom disk sizes) that are being fixed in master. It would be disappointing if we have to wait 10 months or so for these to be released. Release early, release often. Cheers, JK. -----Original Message----- From: Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> Reply-To: "cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org" <cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org> Date: Tuesday, 15 May 2012 6:15 AM To: "cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org" <cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] releases going forward >David, > >My 2 cents (and possibly drawing flames myself): > >During the transition period (and beyond), Citrix is going to do what it >needs to do as a commercial entity. While this list is intended to focus >on the ASF project itself, it's going to take time for an official Apache >release to be approved. For the purpose of my point, the actual estimate >doesn't matter much really... shorter, longer or the same as the time it >took for AOO, it's going to be further off than (I assume) Citrix will >wait >to create a commercial release of the Citrix Cloud Platform. > >I do think that there is value for the community to hear about the closed >efforts that Citrix completes (or plans to complete), and would disagree >with "banning" that type of information from being on this list. As an >individual that happens to work for Citrix, I don't see any conflict with >the two hats you wear (as most of us have multiple hats). > >However, I would suggest that it be limited to important milestones that >are being shared more publicly via other channels as well, and should >probably be clearly noted as being information from Citrix and not ASF. > >Examples: share information when you do a commercial release, but not >when >a performance test is started by a Citrix QA engineer that's focused on an >upcoming commercial product release. > >I think that sharing public information about Citrix activities on this >list is a positive for the overall community. It's really no different >than sharing information about a commercial distributions success in a top >level Apache project's dev listing. It would be informational only, but >be >a positive bit of news for the community as a whole. I assume that >everyone likes to hear about success stories. > >Since this is supposed to be a community owned list, I would hope that (if >there is consensus on the list) nobody has any issues about information >being shared that's of interest to the participants! > >-chip > > >On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 3:21 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: > >> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Geoff Higginbottom >> <geoff.higginbot...@shapeblue.com> wrote: >> > My concern here is that the roadmap has lots of new features, and we >>do >> not want to be waiting 6 months for the next release which was due out >>in >> May >> > >> > Geoff >> > >> >> >> A valid point - though it's worth pointing out that the roadmap you >> are referring to was one from the previous Citrix-governed project >> (and was largely driven by Citrix-employed product management) - there >> are no guarantees that the timelines, accepted features, or even >> version numbers/names will remain the same under Apache governance; as >> has been repeatedly pointed out - Citrix (or any other corporation) >> has no standing here - only individuals. >> >> --David >> >>
