Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-buildservice (50 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-buildservice] open source development model
  • From: Robert Schiele <rschiele@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 21:44:51 +0100
  • Message-id: <20060308204451.GI16618@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I will add mls to cc to allow him to defend himself if he feels that this is
needed. But notice this is not about him but about a general problem of the
development model. He is just involved in one instance of the problem.

On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 08:00:01PM +0100, Sonja Krause-Harder wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 07:23:01PM +0100, Robert Schiele wrote:
> > Actually I don't care whether it is a "shadow" svn or a "shadow"
> > we-don't-use-revision-control-internally-at-all tool. Obviously software
> > (like the build script) is already deployed to the build server in a version
> > that is not in the public repository (because there is _no_ version of the
> > build script in the repository but the server does actually build packages
> > already).
>
> This is the backend part I mentioned.

I know but still want to make the point there because this is exactly the
place where one instance of the problem currently shows up.

> No, I don't. We went public with a pre-pre-alpha, far from feature
> complete, incomplete version to give people the possibility to look at
> the code as early as possible. I understand your frustration that this
> is not going faster, but I can't change it now. We're working on the
> problem.

I understand that you can't chage this now. I am not a naive fool believing
that I can change the way the world turns round in five minutes but I am
pointing to the problems as long until I get some success or until I give up
and go away, whatever happens first.

> > You once moaned about having not enough speakers from outside SUSE at FOSDEM.
>
> I moaned? That was not intended and perhaps a misunderstanding. I hope

Use the verb regret if you think this is more appropriate. It does not alter
my point what the reason is for this situation.

On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 08:06:00PM +0100, Adrian Schroeter wrote:
> The reason is basically that mls has his own mind in which state he want to
> release his code. And he does currently not feel comfortable to release the
> current hacked version. So this is his private opinion, but he promised to
> release it this week, so I would like to avoid to stress this issue too much.

I don't want to stress _this_ issue in special because it is only one instance
of the problem. But I want to use this example to stress the general issue of
the development model.

Actually mls _did_ release his code already. He did release the code to SUSE
staff. Here you get two classes of developers: people inside SUSE/Novell and
people outside.

The question is now: Do you want external developers in the openSUSE project
or not? If you don't want them then you could just state that and I will see
that I did completely misunderstand the intention of the openSUSE project up
to now.

But if you want to attract external developers a change in the development
model should happen.

Would you as a KDE project member port KDE to a new version of Qt if Trolltech
would only give you a pointer to their API documentation of the new release
but not the library itself with the reason that the code is not yet in a state
that can be released? Would you feel comfortable if some employees of
Trolltech started to port KDE to the new version but you had no chance to test
their or your work because you don't have access to the new Qt release?

Would you port glibc to a new kernel if you get only the list of system calls
but not the kernel itself because it is not yet in a state the developer wants
to release?

So for the concrete example mls might reconsider when to release his code but
for the wider view of the whole openSUSE project you and all other people
responsible for the project might reconsider the general development model.
While doing that you should also take into account what happened to other open
source projects after changing the development model. For instance compare
the speed of development and quality of gcc before the egcs fork and
afterwards.

Please don't do the same your colleagues did while developing Xgl. I am sure
they are attracting now some developers from outside Novell because Xgl is a
shiny thing but they could have more if they did develop it in an open way
from the very beginning.

Robert

--
Robert Schiele Tel.: +49-621-181-2214
Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:rschiele@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."
< Previous Next >