Hello team OPM project,
Recently, we have had discussions on this list about ways to restructure
how codes are supported and made available to others to compile, install
and test. OPM is not unique in this struggle to define a more
robust environment for code development, maintenance, download
and compile semantics. Running any opensource project on multiple
(linux) platforms is keen to developing robust code, IMO.
So, here in one "Apache" project that was incubated in a university
lab, moved to Apache for diverse community interaction (use,
contributions and the development of many additional, complementary
codes) and finally into the open at multiple git repositories.
Here are some links that the curious might want to peruse for
ideas and clarity by example:
[1]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sOoPtEyLlST5GTU5iSccqWUsAOlJhf4N9cHoylylYgY/edit?pli=1
[2] https://www.docker.com/whatisdocker/
[3]
https://docs.docker.com/reference/api/docker_remote_api_v1.15/#get-the-history-of-an-image
There are many other models and examples that can be copied, emulated or
such to improve the development, test and deployment environment (or
lack thereof) around OPM. Surely others have ideas?
The current binary-build model is sufficient?
Strangely, this list has grown quite. If I upset anyone, I am
apologizing now. However, I have seen many and been part of a few
projects that have fallen apart, because, open source was not
"conveniently_open". We can also move to a model where codes are
developed however the core developers want them to be; even separately
if desired. We can then copy codes to a central location(s) where anyone
can download, compile, test and validate the codes separately or as part
of a "release", a "version number" or simple as ./configure and make
makefile types of scenarios.
As always, your thoughts and issues are most welcome.
sincerely,
James
_______________________________________________
Opm mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.opm-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opm
