> -----Original Message----- > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] > > [Snip] > > Thinking about the milestone along those lines, I agree that cutting a > release branch over the weekend is a good thing. This is specifically > because of the pending review board submissions that we should start > getting integrated into master as a parallel activity to 4.0 work.
OK, so I think from this and David's earlier email and general consensus that we want to get into a time-based schedule, then we're still on to start the feature freeze at the end of Friday, and have a 4.0 release branch ready for Monday morning. Everyone agreed? > [Snip] > > - Regardless of our desire to be time-bound for our releases, our > first release has a higher-order issue (licensing) that will block us > if anything significant is outstanding. > - Given the importance of the licensing aspects, I believe that we > have to think of the "First release candidate build" milestone as > being predicated on the community believing / agreeing that we have > achieved a satisfactory level of compliance to pass an IPMC vote. Yes, makes sense to me. > [Snip] > > Let's think about "convenience builds" along two lines (because there > are different issues to deal with): > > Binary distribution of the core project - I think this is basically > sorting through the optional vs. required components. Any binary > distro we produce would be only include the required build targets, > not the optional ones. I'm not sure there is much debate open here. > We're headed down the right path. :-) Yep. > System VMs - I've reviewed the discussion notes from OSCON again, just > to refresh my memory. I might not be understanding the verbal > conversation correctly, but it doesn't seem to match what I see on the > apache.org/legal site. Specifically, David mentioned that there was > verbal consensus that we could possibly "prepare a system VM as we > distribute it now as a convenience binary". The item that I'm > concerned about is the "Distribution" section of the Third-Party > Licensing Policy [1] that says "YOU MUST NOT distribute a prohibited > work from an apache.org server.". Doesn't the system VM qualify as a > prohibited work? I agree that System VM binaries are forbidden by written policy. It is possible to ask for exceptions to this policy -- I have done so for libvirt-java, and Sam Ruby says that he'll approve that next week if no-one disagrees in the meantime. If we felt that we needed to make a similar request regarding System VMs, we can do that. Getting alternative infrastructure is a possibility. I'm sure Citrix could manage that, though I worry about the perception that would create, if the software is effectively unusable without Citrix servers. Cheers, Ewan.
