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

[Joe Abbate]

Daryl Monge wrote:
> I have to disagree.  Yes it can remain in a branch and it should.
>
> In fact, it is the beauty of the approach as it places the 
> responsibility of keeping the head-rev and experimental/project branch 
> up to date in the hands of the people responsible for the special 
> project, rather than moving the complications of integration to us 
> internally between the community head-rev and enterprise head-rev. 
>  Project D becomes a community branch project and the responsibility 
> of maintaining the "fork" is with project D.
>
> Which may lead to another strategy comment:  The primary, central 
> community edition we have been calling the "head-rev" should not fork 
> in any substantive way from the enterprise edition mainline in either 
> scenario.  Community variations that will never or not in the near 
> future be brought into the enterprise product should not be placed in 
> the community head-rev.

But from what codeline (Subversion or other RCS branch) do you foresee 
the Community Edition being built?  Are you saying the C.E. would have 
to be built by checking out an official C.E. branch plus some 
experimental branch(es)?  For reference, in the case of the DBMS, when 
we build Enterprise, we take 99% of the sources from a single codeline 
(Piccolo branch), e.g., ingres!ingres2006r3.

Joe