IMO, no. I want the first issue resolved first (revert the code that shouldn't be in the repo). Then we can talk about accepting the donation proposal I assume is coming.
But this is just my opinion. Anyone else? On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi <[email protected]> wrote: > Chip > > Should we expedite IP clearance process and avoid having to revert commits? > > Thanks > Animesh > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Chip Childers [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 11:07 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Concerns about where development has happened >> >> Sheng and Murali, >> >> Due to the nature of the commits below (CLOUDSTACK-306 and CLOUDSTACK- >> 312), and where the master branch HEAD is currently, reverting these commits >> is non-trivial for me to have faith in getting right. >> >> Prior to us moving forward with these features coming through IP clearance, I >> would ask that the two of you spend the time necessary to revert the changes >> in >> the repo. >> >> Please let the community know when the reverts are done. >> >> -chip >> >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Chip Childers <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Chip Childers >> > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> CLOUDSTACK-306 >> >> 42c8c73ab6437d86578f7f6d7b48a96a2de29bec >> >> 177e157cbfa40af82de628cb00876678d7646d2d >> >> 717f9dcd4d25e2a3ccf12598d16cc5d81fd880a9 >> >> CLOUDSTACK-312 >> >> 7fcfcdf91e49d64375171c9ae7fe61067aa59b6e >> >> d4c604cfd8ec6b385de7abf694a936e89add0f38 >> >> 6657246cd44629c30e6ea21cc4bbd43a42788e12 >> >> 0de5a145e4f06420a4eb1867309af674c16ace7c >> >> 28bbf6c52798c9bd298952844250fbc3cb92dce0 >> > >> > The commits above have conflicts for a clean revert. This will take >> > some time to clean up. >> > >> >> CLOUDSTACK-800 >> >> 106730ccdde30450e96d080ed6c9791682fb7300 >> > >> > The commit above has been reverted. >> > >> > -chip >
