Hi All, Back in the days of oi-build, we tried to have a process, and enforce quality, and it just resulted in super slow progress followed by near-death. Andrzej didn't contribute at all as he didn't like the bureaucracy, he just wants to hack-and-go.
So after all that, I basically think Andrzej is completely right with his current approach - breaking things should be allowed. You can't make an omelette quickly and easily without breaking a few eggs. Hipster is an experimental development branch for making rapid progress. If you break something, you can fix it after, no big deal. I do think that /dev should get moved to /release, and /hipster should go to /dev. Not many know about hipster beyond the oi-dev list. It would show people in the outside world that progress is being made on OI. And on an unrelated note, someone motivated enough should do something about www.openindiana.org - it's ugly and out of date :-) Regards, Alasdair On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Ken Gunderson <kgund...@teamcool.net>wrote: > At Thu, 11 Jul 2013 01:12:50 +0200, > Adam Števko wrote: > > > > Hi Erol, > > > > On Jul 10, 2013, at 11:50 PM, Erol Zavidic <ero...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Good evening folks, > > > > thanks for your feedbacks so far, here's the summary clustered in > some way: > > > > 1.0 - Release Engineering: > > 1.1 - should not be bureaucratic, i.e. rather an internal > agreement (Alex) > > > > I support this type for now. > > > > 1.2 - the process of pushing updates to /dev or /stable repos is > undefined > > (Alex) > > > > 1.3 - safeguarding /stable repo (Jon) > > 1.4 - streamline code review and integration process LGTMs (Adam) > > 1.5 - build of many desktop packages impossible due to missing > Manifests > > (David) > > 1.6 - creation of development, release and stable branches within > hipster > > repository (Erol) > > I don't code and been away from OI for a while visiting other > interesting lands. It's good to see OI getting some traction. I have > used platforms developed on the release, stable, and testing model for > many years, e.g. FreeBSD. It worked. But I question whether this may > have become rather outdated with the advancement of more modern, agile > like models. For example, on the desktop I have been using Archlinux, > wh/uses a rolling release model, and it has been working out quite > nicely. This model eliminates the extra manpower required to maintain > separate branches. Of course not many that I know of are using Arch > server side and I think a /stable branch may be beneficial and > justifiable on OI. OTOH, OI was intended as continuation of OS, so > maybe desktop is it's niches, especially in light of SmartOS and > OmniOS offerings for server side use. What compelling features does > OI offer to compete with these? Hence, maybe best not to and focus on > desktop niche. Maybe not... > > In any case, I have been doing some "DevOps" Engineering as of late > and moving more towards a rolling release model would facilitate > "Continuous Delivery" <http://continuousdelivery.com/>. Frequent > smaller changes make breakages easier to track than "vetting" big > releases and keep things fresher on the desktop. > > Just a few thoughts. We now return you to your regularly scheduled > programming... > > Peace-- Ken > > _______________________________________________ > oi-dev mailing list > oi-dev@openindiana.org > http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev > -- Alasdair Lumsden http://www.everycity.co.uk EveryCity Managed Hosting Studio 18 Bluelion Place 237 Long Lane, London, SE1 4PU general: 020 7183 2800 support: 020 7183 2801 email: a...@everycity.co.uk Every City Limited Registered in England and Wales, No. 5689474 Registered Office: Roper Yard, Roper Road, Canterbury, CT2 7EX
_______________________________________________ oi-dev mailing list oi-dev@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev