Hi, On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 09:22 +0100, ext Andrew Flegg wrote: > The lack of information can lead to the > frustration in this thread - especially if there are still mistakes > slipping through (such as #8474).
Let's try to clarify some aspect that seems to be going under the radar. Here we are dealing also with 3rd party IPs, including - mostly - HW/FW. While the goal is obviously to be as open as possible, it's a fact hat some _HW_ companies might get - rightfully - touchy if their data is published in an uncontrolled way. There are processes in place to ensure that data is published in a controlled way, but they take time. #8474 was a mistake in the sense that it should have not gone public at all - at least not now. And the following glitch closed-public-closed was another thing that could have been avoided. Said this, I think it must be accepted that we are not very close yet to the point where also HW design and FW source code are open, so it will be inevitable that some bugs will be tracked all the way down to the lower levels and then the visibility will stop. This is not peculiar to MeeGo and affects also other open projects (see kernel vs ACPI bios) where eventually bug tracking hits the wall of non public IPs and the. The only difference is that here we are addressing end-to-end use cases with all the bugs kept in one single repository and therefore some access control must be exerted. cheers, igor _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
