On 14 November 2013 13:34, Colin McNamara <co...@2cups.com> wrote: > Not to be contrarian, but 92% of the commits in Havana came from > non-individual contributions. The majority of those came from big name > companies (IBM, RedHat, etc). > > What I see as a great thing is the increasing number [and diversity] of > companies committing, especially from end user/operators. > > In the operator case, there are examples where an operator uses another > companies Dev's to write a patch for their install that gets commited > upstream. In this case, the patch was sponsored by the operator company, > written and submitted by a developer employed by another. > > Allowing for tracking if the fact that an operator/end user sponsored a > patch to be created further incents more operators/end users to put funds > towards getting features written. > > This is a positive for the project, it's Dev's and the community. It also > opens up an expanded market for contract developers working on specifier > features. > > My perspective - I work at and operator / integrator. I have my teams > working on multiple projects including OpenStack. Peers of mine in Silicon > Valley who have funded major OpenStaxk development Efforts have required > that code to be released, but have had trouble verifying. The sponsored by > tag would provide an easy way of tracking, as well as further incent the > behavior of funding improvements. > > My 2 cents.
It's not *at all* clear that the publicity from having commits tagged as 'sponsored by FOO' are valuable for organisation Foo. There are two scenarios I can see where this turns up: a) Operator/Deployer X wants a bugfix/feature and their supporting organisation Y delivers the work for them. b) Vendor X wants a bugfix/feature and they contract to another OpenStack connected organisation Y to do the work for them. For case a) the reward of getting the work done is it's own benefit. There is perhaps a tiny bit of kudos they get by upstreaming the code, but as being a contributor to OpenStack isn't key to their business model, it's marginal at best: if being a contributor was key, they would be resourcing the work themselves. For case b) again the feature/bugfix is it's own benefit - the vendors users get the ability to use the bugfix/feature and the vendor can sell more of their product. And again, if being part of the OpenStack community is core to their plans, they will be doing that! So - there are intrinsic motivators for doing this work. Do we need to track the (I suspect) small fraction of patches with this provenance in an explicit fashion at all? -Rob -- Robert Collins <rbtcoll...@hp.com> Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
