On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 08:40:00PM -0800, Scott Tracy wrote: > Having the source ready for publishing is not a requirement for setting up a > project. I'm not looking for an endless debate here but there are many > examples of Open Solaris Projects that started without the source. iSNS is > just one such project, in fact it only has prototype code at the moment, but > it started with nothing. The idea is to get the community educated, involved > and yes, eventually publish the source so a developer can DO something with > it, but it's not a barrier to entry as long as the intention is not malformed > into a marketing ploy or other sleezy engagement.
1) I voiced earlier that I was disappointed at previous projects that didn't have source available either, and that I was going to be a jerk about it from now on. 2) The difference between Honeycomb and iSNS is that iSNS is targeting a consolidation (NWS) that already publishes source - so even if the iSNS developers never make their own source tarballs available (which I hope won't happen) - we at least have a reasonable assurance that it will be open in the end by way of the NWS consolidation. On the other hand, the best I've seen Honeycomb offer is "we will look at opening up Honeycomb". That's just not strong enough of an assurance for me. > The SDK layer is not cast in stone. XAM is in SNIA now, but is nowhere near > complete. This is a chance for developers to take a look at the interfaces, > figure out what they want and influence the product (and potentially the > industry). I'd say this is open development. Sure, so why does it need a project? The only thing a project offers over communities are SCM repositories. Clearly, Honeycomb does not yet have source - that's fine. Peter has already initiated discussion the Appliances community, let it live there until they have source ready - at which point they can request a project to host their source. > I would give my vote to start the project provided the team starts with a > reasonable set of documents and SDK to make my mouth water as long as I have > the details to use it. Something like: > * Design Documents on the source > * SDK > * Example application on using the SDK (or Whitepaper) That's fine... that's why we have these public proposals so people can get +1 or -1 opinions from people. :) cheers, steve -- stephen lau // [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 650.786.0845 | http://whacked.net opensolaris // solaris kernel development _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
