Hi Pat I don't agree with your conclusion #2.
The requirement is that we provide the preferred form of modification. We can't have one form that some people prefer and another form for a few select people. If we accept this code, everyone must modify the same sources. The tool that originally produced the code needs to become irrelevant going forward. On Tuesday 27 January 2015 14:12:04 Lankswert, Patrick wrote: > Thiago, > > Let me add two thoughts to that. Let me apologize in advance if they lead > down the rabbit hole. > 1) If the generated code is accepted as the source, it needs to be reviewed. > There is a lot of code. > 2) You could run the generator again, BUT it is > the responsibility of the contributor to respect any standing modifications > and merge the results responsibly or face rejection from a maintainer. The > consequences of this approach is that as along the generated code is > unchanged by human hands more generated code could be contributed as new > source. However, once the generated code is modified by human hands, the > merge burden increases for those who continue to use the tool. Likely until > it is unsustainable without sharing the tool. > Does that make sense? > > Pat > > -----Original Message----- > From: iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org > [mailto:iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org] On Behalf Of Thiago > Macieira Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 8:48 PM > To: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > Subject: Re: [dev] Control Manager > > On Tuesday 27 January 2015 10:12:19 ??? wrote: > > > As like Jay's comment in the next mail from you, Tool is just what > > help the code made easily. > > If people can make the code without tool, I feel we don't need to > > mandate the tool contributed. > > We need to aware that the strict contribution policy can hamper the > > contribution activity. > > > I'm sorry Uze, but we can't ignore a cornerstone of being open source. Files > need to be contributed in the preferred form for modification. This is a > hard requirement and we can't simply choose when to opt in or out. > Additionally, there should be a freely available tool to translate those > sources to the build form. > We seem to be choosing solution #2 from my list, which is to declare the > output of the generator the new, preferred form for modification. That is > fine, provided that: > a) the generated code is actually readable and maintainable > b) no one EVER runs the tool again in those files > > I would still like to get a confirmation by someone about (a). > > -- > Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com > Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center > > _______________________________________________ > iotivity-dev mailing list > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
