On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 12:07:26PM -0700, Stephen Hahn wrote: > * David Edmondson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-03-13 11:45]: > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 11:30:20AM -0700, Stephen Hahn wrote: > > > Although I agree that there are problems with a "give Sun hardware" > > > policy, I am less convinced that there shouldn't be some contributor, > > > not employed by the device manufacturer, able to test that, with the > > > device installed, the software actually functions according to the > > > architectural specification. > > > > How might this work for Sun developed or integrated devices or > > platforms? > > Generally, I don't want to set up a hardware escrow/swap scheme, > but instead understand how we get to some commonly held level of > trust.
Whilst observing that we have a (very one sided) escrow scheme in operation today, I'd agree that it isn't something that will scale well. In some instances it may be impossible. > Perhaps I am mistaken in thinking that--for ON (since other > consolidations/communities could have different criteria)--Sun > would achieve that level of trust rapidly. Maybe not. I'd hope so, but when a formal requirement for some level of validation forms part of the process, Sun should have to meet the requirement just as any other contributor. > Specifically, it depends on whether you treat Sun as one entity--and > hold to a strict interpretation of my use of "employ". My litmus test for all of these conversations is to replace "Sun" in the sentence with a variety of other companies. Given that, I think that in this respect the community should treat Sun as a single entity (because that's the kind of treatment I'd expect for other companies). > Certainly there have been both reviews and testing of hardware and > software components within Sun where initial versions of those > components were denied integration. So there's an inside-Sun set > of trust relationships that either need to be exposed, or the > process needs to be restructured so that equivalent community > relationships get established... PSARC/2006/680 (SolarFlare NIC/PORT Drivers) is the specific example that prompted this part of the discussion. The submitter is unlikely to be able to provide Sun with hardware to meet the current escrow requirement in a timely manner. How might we meet the level of trust that is required to permit integration? I'm happy to participating in validating that the software delivered meets the architecture described in the case, including visiting SolarFlare to "lay hands" on the hardware/software combination in action. dme. _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
