[os-infrastructure] Re: [os-engineering] Closed source components

[Bodo Bergmann]

A "community" branch (branched from the piccolo-main-mirror
"community-main") 
would still allow all the community releases (branched from "community")
to benefit from the Ingres staff input,
but additionally allows to have community-only (non-enterprise) features
in it - without repeated cross-integration and merging
from one community release/project branch to the next.
 
In the end it comes to the question if the main community codeline (from
which community release codelines are branched) is
a) what Ingres Corp. thinks is best for the community (we only accept
your enterprise-ready features) OR
b) what the community thinks it wants - with support/recommendations
from Ingres Corp.
   (decision what goes into the community codeline made by the community
- e.g. by a steering commity,
    but we will only take back enterprise-ready changes to our main
codeline)
 
I don't think OpenSource communities like the "We know what's best for
you!" attitude,
probably it's best to ask the community members.
 
The decision how the community is supposed to do development should not
depend on
the tools used or the synchronization effort required. 
 
Bodo.

________________________________

From: opensource-infrastructure-bounces at lists.ingres.com
[mailto:opensource-infrastructure-bounces at lists.ingres.com] On Behalf Of
Alex Hanshaw
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 6:02 PM
To: Discussions about the infrastructure needed to support a true
opensourcecommunity
Subject: RE: [os-infrastructure] Re: [os-engineering] Closed source
components



My answer is yes. community-main is our interface to our piccolo
repositories (for enterprise) and controlled by us.

Ray's diagram shows community release branches from community-main. They
can be anywhere from 100% through to 0% input and control from us.

community-main being controlled does not mean we can not have a
community release that is owned and run by the community.

That said, initially at least, the community is unlikely (IMO) to want
to own a release that has not input from Ingres staff.

 

 Alex

 

________________________________

From: opensource-infrastructure-bounces at lists.ingres.com
[mailto:opensource-infrastructure-bounces at lists.ingres.com] On Behalf Of
Daryl Monge
Sent: 01 July 2008 16:22
To: Discussions about the infrastructure needed to support a true open
sourcecommunity
Subject: Re: [os-infrastructure] Re: [os-engineering] Closed source
components

 

On Jul 1, 2008, at 10:07 AM, Roger L. Whitcomb wrote:





So, Alex, you're saying that Ingres Corp. would retain most of
the authority over what gets into community main??  And based on our
"enterprise-ready" criteria?

 

I can't speak for Alex ( ;-) )  but my preferred answer is yes.  

 

Observations:

            Open Source does not imply giving up ownership and
responsibility of the code

            There is no amorphous blob of community out there that will
want big features we don't want

 

So from a pragmatic point of view, I think this is all a "tempest in a
teapot".  We are not going to see some huge demand from the community to
put anything but useful incremental features and bug fixes into the Open
Source head-rev.

 

The Project D example is highly illustrative, but with respect to the
"D" folks,  I do not see the real world clamoring for these types of
projects to be integrated into the mainline.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ingres.com/pipermail/opensource-infrastructure/attachments/20080701/8b90b96f/attachment-0001.html