Hi Sunil, On 8/1/20 1:31 AM, Sunil Muthuswamy wrote: >> Hi Justin, Sunil, > > Justin has moved to a different team is no longer working with WHPX. Moving > him > to bcc.
OK. Does that mean you are the new responsible of updating the ticket regarding the WHPX headers and their license? > >> >> On 5/20/20 12:26 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >>> +launchpad ticket >>> >>> On 9/20/19 6:53 PM, Justin Terry (VM) wrote: >>>> Hey Phil, >>>> >>>> I have contacted our legal department for guidance on this specific >>>> use case and will update you when I hear back. Thank you for your >>>> patience. >> >> I recently understood legal changes can be very complex, thus it is >> implicit it can take years before getting updates. >> >> Since the project is still actively developed, maybe you could provide >> a Azure CI job to build a WHPX binary. We don't need to have access to >> the binary, just to the exit status (success/fail) and build logs. >> >> Do you think it is doable? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Phil. >> > The ask generally sounds reasonable. But, can you help me understand the full > scope of the ask. Few questions: > 1. Stefan has a CI pipeline to build WHPX. Great! I didn't know Stefan already did it :) Can you share the URL please, so we can integrate it with mainstream CI? > What's the benefit of having another CI > job, that doesn't export the binary, but, just the status? As usual, we do not want to circumvent the license. IANAL but IIUC we can not force a CI job to accept the EULA when installing it, even to test it. So the best we can do is check if the build succeeded (exit status). > 2. Which branch is the CI pipeline expected to build? 'master', to be sure no regressions are introduced. > 3. Is the expectation also that it will build WHPX patches that are submitted > to the > WHPX branch? You describe a "downstream CI" testing, which is out of scope of the community public CI. Regards, Phil.
