On Fri, 2009-05-15 at 08:26 +0200, Øyvind Harboe wrote: > My interest lies in a couple of things. I don't know what > "role" this translates into though: > > - recruit first rate maintainers. Actually I'm kinda done with this as > it seems we have a positive feedback loop now.
This is "Recruiter", and you can never be done with that job. > - commit good patches to svn quickly so as to encourage contributors I am seeing the need for at least one "always open to commit" testing branch that allows this kind of behavior, but this is off-topic. These topics will get their own thread soon enough. > - keep an eye on performance. OpenOCD has a unique capability > of supporting *both* high processing power high latency(USB & TCP/IP) > interfaces *and* low processing power low latency(embedded hosts). > The policy of OpenOCD is that all interfaces are equal, but if an > interface is no longer maintained or tested, then the community > has no responsibility for it. I like that: only if we take responsibility > do we have responsiblity :-) > - there are, still, architectural problems with OpenOCD. > I'd like to make these changes if they make the code more clear, > reduces # of lines of code, more robust to changes(i.e. that changing > X doesn't break Y) and there is a reasonable way to transition > and retest. > - target testing & qualification. I want a list of supported and tested > targets/flash devices. It is not so much that I want everything to > work than that I want to know *what* I can claim to work. It's OK > if an older version has to be used for some obsolete target > hardware. > - I want to get the basic architecture and inner workings of > OpenOCD right & stable so we can have long term stability > in place(years). I believe that a couple of years from now we will > recall the good old days of '09 when we had virtually no > users, few targets and we could do what we wanted. Now > is the time when we can make changes relatively easily. So to sum these up: - performance - architecture - testing/qualification - stability I think all of these goals fall under "major contributing developer", if not "systems architect". I think that everyone needs to share this later hat in a meritocratic fashion: in open source, those who propose, seek consensus on, and implement major changes are the Architects. However, I think there is a more important role that you play, which needs to be called out -- if only to draw out others from the same bush. Given that Zylin AS produces the ZY1000, you are an OpenOCD "Vendor". Right now, I am not sure what that means, but it deserves mention. In fact, I think this point deserves a thread of its own. Stay tuned. Personally, I think that Zylin AS has been an excellent OpenOCD citizen. Providing support for the community is frequently a thankless task, and you have done a first-rate job of communicating with and supporting the community. Despite any mistakes you may have made recently, I think you deserve high praise for your long-term commitment to the project. Cheers, Zach _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
