> -----Original Message----- > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 1:37 PM > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: CloudStack 4.0 release plan > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Ewan Mellor > <ewan.mel...@eu.citrix.com> wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] > >> Sent: 27 July 2012 08:14 > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > >> Subject: Re: CloudStack 4.0 release plan > >> > >> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Wido den Hollander > <w...@widodh.nl> > >> wrote: > >> > How are we going to decide what is going into 4.0 and not? > >> > > >> > Do we have a list of functionality what we want to see in 4.0? > >> > > >> > Wido > >> > >> If memory serves me, I thought the list previously agreed that 4.0 > >> would focus on meeting the licensing, IP, etc... requirements for > ASF. > >> I think that the new features are fantastic, but I'd prefer if we > >> remained very focused on getting to an official ASF release done > >> first. > >> > >> This does beg the question though: how do we want to proceed with > >> future release planning and execution? > > > > Hi Chip, > > > > Yes, we are focussing on getting the licensing and IP issues > addressed, but it's taken much longer than anyone wanted to sort out > the policy and legal issues, and meanwhile there's tons of code being > written by people and held in feature branches. The policy issues have > become the long pole. > > > > What I really don't want is for Apache 4.0 to have fewer features > than Citrix 3.0.x. That would just be broken. But we have a whole > team of people who are still writing code, and they don't have anywhere > official to put it while these policy issues get sorted out. > > Can the community help with the policy issues that you are talking > about? I know some of us are working through licensing issues, but > I'm not sure what else you might be referring to (are these all on the > wiki page for license issues?).
They're all on the wiki page, yes. I have just opened a thread on legal-discuss regarding a few of them -- that discussion is going to take as long as it takes. You can definitely help with code refactoring in the meantime though. Anything that is dependent on a non-Apache-licensed component needs to be optional in the build (this is good practice anyway, regardless of the legal issues). The most recent one was the F5 code that you found yesterday. We need to be able to turn these features off, so that we can make a pure Apache build. Meanwhile, I am asking for permission to host alternate binaries with these features enabled, so that users don't need to build from source. > I wasn't suggesting that new features not be added. Obviously Citrix > (and others like Wido, etc...) are working on new features, based on > their personal or organizational priorities. Don't stop! I was just > pointing out that we had agreed that ASF licensing / legal issues were > the priority for 4.0. If there is an in-progress feature that isn't > completed by the time we are ready legally, then I was assuming that > it doesn't ship with 4.0. Yes agreed. If it's not ready, it doesn't get in. We have plenty of people who are desperate for a new release now -- it's time they got one. Cheers, Ewan.
