*+1*
Greetings from Stuttgart,
Alexander
On 23.11.2012 13:02, Frank Zunderer wrote:
Hi Marco,
in my opinion OXID could be much more "community driven" 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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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 management's head changes...
It's kind of depressing but that's 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 <mailto: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 <http://www.orca.ch>, www.orca-services.ch
<http://www.orca-services.ch>
*"We convert your visitors into customers."*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Von:*dev-general-boun...@lists.oxidforge.org
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
