you are so right Frank I agree in all points :) Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Martina Schimbach ---- http://www.facebook.com/www.bastelundhobbykiste.de Martinas Bastel- & Hobbykiste Geschäftsleitung Bestellhotline: 0800-9655324 Martinas Bastel- & Hobbykiste Inh. Martina Schimbach Zum Grund 9 35796 Blessenbach Germany USt-IdNr.: DE 187589656 Tel: 0049 (0) 6474 - 882816 Fax: 0049 (0) 6474 - 8525 Internet: http://www.bastelundhobbykiste.de/ (http://www.bastelundhobbykiste.de) oder http://www.kreative-buecher.de/ (http://www.kreative-buecher.de) e-Mail: i...@bastelundhobbykiste.de -----Ursprüngliche Daten----- Datum: 23.11.2012 13:02:31 Von: Frank Zunderer <frank.zunde...@zunderer.de> An: <dev-general@lists.oxidforge.org> Betreff: Re: [oxid-dev-general] OXID Deployment System + The Community Vorgang: T-EK59Y2G4LW-57 > Hi Marco, > > in my opinion OXID could be much more bdquocommunity drivenldquo without code > contributions if there was more communication. OXID devs very rarely comment > conceptual suggestions in this list and also in the bugtracker. Before > developing or submitting new code, the concepts behind the new code would > have to be discussed, which is not happening. This leads to the impression > that there is no way to contribute to development process except posting bugs > where documented features do not work the way they are documented, or > Uservoice where new features can be suggested. Both places are not suitable > for suggesting conceptual changes to the code, so you can only wait until > next release to see what the devs have cooked in their private kitchen. > > Regards Frank > > Von: dev-general-boun...@lists.oxidforge.org > [mailto:dev-general-boun...@lists.oxidforge.org] Im Auftrag von Marco > Steinhaeuser > Gesendet: Freitag, 23. November 2012 12:09 > An: dev-general@lists.oxidforge.org > Betreff: Re: [oxid-dev-general] OXID Deployment System + The Community > > Hi guys, > > @Dave: thanks for your thoughts. This is close to the way we are thinking > presently. But: no decisions made yet nor any time frame! > > Actually, the development and CI structures have been build up before we went > open source. In this time nobody expected any contributions :-) > > The re-structure is just a technical issue as well as a question of time and > resources: the code base has to be split, the CI process ("grown > historically") has to be re-factored etc... > > @Alex: > > this will never ever happen > Never say "never". > > > but to me this looks like a prevention mechanism so nobody can recreate > > enterprise features > Wrong. > > > Oxid will end up like osCommerce did. > You could have found a better example ;) > > @Marc: You're wrong. > > Regards and have a nice weekend > Marco > > From: dev-general-boun...@lists.oxidforge.org > [dev-general-boun...@lists.oxidforge.org] on behalf of Development @ ORCA > Services AG [developm...@orca.ch] > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 2:24 PM > To: dev-general@lists.oxidforge.org > Cc: Dino Fellmann - ORCA Services AG > Subject: Re: [oxid-dev-general] OXID Deployment System + The Community > > Hi Dave > > Thanks for your thoughts. > > To put it simple: > > In my opinion OXID eSales, or better said the management of them, never > really understood the concept of a real community driven/developed, open > source software. > > What they see is a product to market, a property to protect, just like a > usual piece of proprietary software. > > They talk about the OXID eco system, not the community, there we have it. > > And thus we will never ever see something just remotely resembling to what > you described if not something in managementrsquos head changeshellip > > Itrsquos kind of depressing but thatrsquos the way I, and probably not just > me, see it. > > Greetings from Switzerland > > Marc Würth > > ORCA Services AG > Bahnhofstrasse 11 > CH-4133 Pratteln > Office Basel: Aeschengraben 10, CH-4051 Basel > > marc.wue...@orca.ch > T. +41 61 205 80 80 > > T. +41 61 205 80 73 (direkt) > > F. +41 61 205 80 81 > > www.orca.ch , www.orca-services.ch > > "We convert your visitors into customers." > > Von: dev-general-boun...@lists.oxidforge.org [ > mailto:dev-general-boun...@lists.oxidforge.org ] Im Auftrag von Dave Holloway > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 22. November 2012 10:19 > An: dev-general@lists.oxidforge.org > Betreff: [oxid-dev-general] OXID Deployment System + The Community > > Hi all, > > I was having a bit of a surf yesterday and found this comment from Erik: > > http://phpterror.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/oxid-esales-show-me-your-94-unit-test-coverage/#comment-16 > > The original post was about unpublished Unit-Tests, which wasn't terribly > interesting, but it was the comment that caught my eye. It describes the > internal code deployment system of OXID and why it's tricky to accept code > contributions. > > It's now clear to me why the switch to a distributed version platform such as > GIT/GITHub/BitBucket is so difficult: OXID has one codebase, and the > deployment scripts remove certain parts for the different distributions (i.e > the SOAP-Code gets removed for PE, and the WYSIWYG-Editor gets removed for CE > etc.). This means it isn't practical or even possible for OXID to share their > code, and why we only have access to the neutered pseudo SVN repository at > http://svn.oxid-esales.com , where almost all authors are called > "nightlybuild". > > The whole structure got me thinking: why does this problem exist?, and I'm > pretty sure that it all boils down to the marketing of the editions > (CE/PE/EE). Each edition is advertised as a separate product, each with > (basically) a separate license. Since most of the codebase of the 3 editions > are the same, people who want to contribute need to jump through hoops and > sign NDAs/similar documents to agree that the code belongs to OXID and that > they have the right to distribute it in all three editions without the > requirement of making PE/EE open-source. > > So my question: why not do it differently? The name "community edition" is > (in my opinion) misleading and seems to have earned the reputation of "take > this, go away, and stop complaining about it Dave". Why not do something > completely different and take CE, rename it to "OXID eSales Basic", keep the > license as GNU and continue to sell your commercial/encrypted PE/EE features > under a different license as 'addon packs', such as "Professional Addon Pack" > and "Enterprise Addon Pack"? > > This way, you can keep the "basic" core open-source and even put it on > GitHub, where you will be able to obtain free code contributions/patches from > many many developers, and it will still allow you to sell your advanced > features and not lose money. The community developers wouldn't have to sign > any silly NDAs either. The PE/EE Addon packs could still be versioned > internally and wouldn't have to be open-source. > > So, kurz zusammengefasst, my suggestion would be: > > - Replace the CE-Edition as "OXID eSales Basic" > - Sell the PE-Edition as "OXID eSales Basic + Professional Addon Pack" > - Sell the EE-Edition as "OXID eSales Basic + Enterprise Addon Pack" > > ...this would solve your licensing issues, would give you the ability to > harness the power of the OXID developer community. And to be super-sure that > you don't have to distribute your code for PE and EE, you could deliver each > product as two separate ZIP files. e.g. (oxid-basic.zip and > oxid-pe-addonpack.zip). Internal development/continuous-integration testing > wouldn't be too hard either: you would just need a few scripts to install > OXID-Basic and the addon packs and to run your tests on them. > > What does anyone else think? I know it probably won't happen, but I fear that > OXID will soon slowly die away into insignificance if they don't update their > workflows to something more modern. > > Dave > > _______________________________________________ > dev-general mailing list dev-general@lists.oxidforge.org > http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.comp.php.oxid.general
_______________________________________________ dev-general mailing list dev-general@lists.oxidforge.org http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.comp.php.oxid.general
