Thank you very much for the help. Bruce
Keith M Wesolowski wrote: > On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 01:32:13PM -0700, Bruce Rothermal wrote: > > >> Hopefully I will be the wiser on this because my group will be going >> through this same process very soon and it is not very friendly from >> what I saw in the emails over the last couple of days. On either side. >> > > Actually most development is cordial and friendly on all sides. Parts > of the process are cumbersome, mainly because of laggard > infrastructure, and a small number of people have become very > frustrated with that. But I'm fairly certain that if you read the > following four documents you will be way ahead of the game and should > have a fairly easy time: > > 1. The nuts and bolts of getting your project integrated. This is one > of the places where we're farthest from where we need to be, but the > process itself is not complex. This is also something of a high-level > overview of the entire process. See > http://www.opensolaris.org/os/communities/participation/. > > 2. The ON development process. Most other consolidations utilise > similar processes, often subsets. See > http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/on/os_dev_process/. The > Developer's Reference is also highly recommended; some of it is > ON-specific but it contains a variety of useful information including > a glossary. > > 3. The ARC process. John already pointed this out: > http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/arc/. > > 4. The Constitution, which describes what Community Groups are and how > they govern and lead technical work. It's a bit abstract, but it's > essential to understand how the community is structured. Note that > there are efforts under way to make major changes to this document to > better support and reinforce the kind of development processes > required to successfully build extremely high quality software on this > scale. See http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/ogb/governance/. > > I don't understand the assertion that any of this is "personally > insulting" or "unfriendly" but we can't tell people what to think. > Suggestions for improving navigation could be made to the appropriate > CG or, in the case of top-level material, via website-discuss. > Corrections likewise. > > If you just want a code repository you can stuff your ideas into at > will, you don't care about most of this; you just need to get a CG to > sponsor your project, which is a fancy way of saying that the high > muckety-mucks in the CG need to think what you want to do is a good > idea so that you can have your repository. If you want anyone to > actually use your thing, you need to integrate it into one or more > consolidations, as appropriate, which triggers all this horrible > burdensome process designed and proven to ensure that the software we > love doesn't become a worthless pile of garbage. If that *idea* is at > odds with your personal philosophy, integrating into OpenSolaris > consolidations might not be your cup of tea; consider trying to get a > distribution to accept your prroject on a standalone basis, taking a > private fork, or joining a different community. If the > *implementation* of the process is found lacking, feel free to suggest > or work on improvements. > >
