On 08/10/2012 02:27 AM, Ewan Mellor wrote:
-----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?
+1, from monday on we'll have a 4.0 branch.
That means however that you have to submit bugs fixes into master and
4.0.x, right?
[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.
