On Sat, Apr 07, 2012 at 01:27:24PM +0100, Jeremy Bennett wrote: > On Sat, 2012-04-07 at 11:28 +0100, R. Diez wrote: > > > > > +For general information about Or1ksim, post to both OpenRISC mailing > > > lists: > > > + > > > + [email protected] > > > + [email protected] > > > + > > > +(yes we do mean crosspost - they have disjoint sets of readers). > > > > > >The following process applies to both the SVN HEAD and release > > >branches. > > >+ > > >+* Submit the patch to both OpenRISC mailing lists > > > > > > I tend to posts patches from time to time, and I feel that you are > > abusing your position of power in or1ksim in order to pursue a > > political > > agenda, namely that you would like to move all OpenRISC development > > to > > OpenCores.org . You are trying to get all OpenRISC source code under > > OpenCores' Subversion and move all mailing list traffic there too.
I've promised myself to not get involved in those political discussion, they are mostly just contraproductive and not very interesting from a technical point of view (which is where my real interest in this project is), but I couldn't strain myself on this one... so here we go > > Hi Ruben, > > That is a most unfair accusation, and I am not sure why you are making > it. > I just want to take the opportunity here to say that I have no doubts that your intentions regarding the OpenRISC projects are purely for what you believe is the best for the project (and for open source hardware/software in general). > Openrisc.net was set up by Jonas Bonn, one of the major recent > professional contributors to the OpenRISC project in April 2011. He set > it up to provide functionality, particularly mailing lists, a Wiki and > later git support, which he felt was missing from the main opencores.org > website. He also disliked the requirement at that time to register even > for read access to the source code. Those were issues that many of us > across the community agreed with. > > The owners of opencores.org, ORSoC AB, responded after a couple of > months by providing mailing lists, which is why there are OpenCores > mailing lists, an opencores Wiki and git support. And it has to be clear > that the pressure from Jonas was important in making those changes > happen. > What is a bit frustrating is that improvements only come when the maintainers of opencores.org are cornered and start to fear that they are loosing control over the OpenRISC project. In turn, that kind of behaviour just nurture the sort of suspicions we have just heard from Ruben. I think it is also worth noting that the improvements only have been made to the OpenRISC project (anonymous checkout, wiki pages, mailing lists). The git repositories are not very useful at the moment, maintainers have really no control over them (for example there is no possibility to create your own, and no-one seems to even know how to do commits to them) and again, only for the OpenRISC project. I understand that improving a site such as opencores.org takes time and resources which the opencores.org maintainers are not willing to spend infinitely. But personally, I have a pragmatic view of the situation, I rather use the solutions that are most convinient for me, and I believe I am not alone when rationalising like this. > We had a meeting of many of the major OpenRISC contributors in Stockholm > last July. Johan Rilegard, the CEO of ORSoC AB and Marcus Erlandsson, > their CTO took part, as did I, Jonas Bonn, Julius Baxter, Olof Kindgren, > Stefan Kristiansson and a number of others you will recognize from IRC > and the mailing lists. > > It is perhaps worth noting that many of the major contributors to this > meeting are not just hobbyists, but are or have been paid professional > contributors. My company, Embecosm, was paid to develop the GCC 4.5 tool > chain to production standard, Olof works for ORSoC AB, Julius used to > work for ORSoC AB, Jonas was paid to develop Linux for OpenRISC. > Although true, I believe I was the only one without any commercial interest at this meeting, I'm not sure I understand why this is important to point out? (I don't mind commercial interest towards the project though, to the contrary, I believe it's most beneficial for it) > We discussed many things, including what we felt was wrong with > OpenCores and how it was managed. We discussed the possibility of > setting up OpenCores as an independent foundation, but ORSoC AB made it > clear this was not a route they were ready for. I for one was willing to > accept this, having lived through the period in 2007 when opencores.org > ran without commercial backing and was almost unusable. > > Jonas was asked if he would merge his openrisc.net OpenRISC mailing list > into the opencores.org OpenRISC mailing list. He indicated he was > prepared to consider this, but so far has not taken up the offer. > The way I remembered it, what was dicussed was that the mailing lists should be merged, I don't think it was ever actually mentioned that the openrisc.net OpenRISC mailing list should be merged _into_ the opencores OpenRISC mailing list. > In the meantime *all* those present agreed to cross-post to both mailing > lists, to ensure no one was left out. That is why for example the > openrisc.net wiki and mailing lists are promoted and linked to from the > opencores.org website. > I can confirm that this was the case. > Up until the last few weeks everyone has been happy to do that. I am not > sure why you feel it is so important to break that concensus. > > > In a truly open environment, the maintainers would be happy to take > > any patches they can get, with whatever means, whether the patch's > > body is inlined or not. Should they have a concern about the patch's > > contents, they would then discuss it themselves with other maintainers > > or interested people wherever they like, without forcing anybody to > > post to any list in particular. > > Personally I don't care whether patches are inlined or not, since my > mail client will inline text attachments for me anyway. However it is a > widely accepted convention in the open source software community, and as > you will note from Stefan Kristiansson's email this morning, others like > it. In particular git can accept inlined mail messages directly (using > git am). > I see them inlined (or I can open the attachment in my mail client and view it as text) too, it just makes it slightly easier to make comments on the code when responding if it is inlined. Many projects have strict rules on how patches should be submitted, that doesn't make their environment less open in my opinion. The rules are most commonly there to make the life easier for maintainers, thus making it easier for submitted patches to be applied. Stefan _______________________________________________ OpenRISC mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openrisc.net/listinfo/openrisc
