Mike et al.,
Well, perhaps nanofaq, cast into prose. From reading the web and lists I've
seen, I'm still a little unclear on the actual modus operandi for us ex-officio
I gather that the community buglist is world-readable--all bugs, save perhaps
in the still-encumbered components. We can see a sanitized subset of the ARC
proceedings, with Sun proprietary stuff redacted.
The sponsorship process is individual bug driven, so that, for each selected
bug, we apply, get selected by (perhaps) a different sponsor than for the last
bug, do our thing, submit the proposed code change to the sponsor. The sponsor
will surely change if we move across different communities, but otherwise might
Sponsor reviews our code, then if s/he approves, s/he does the actual putback;
we never touch the real gate. Prior to that, sponsor stress tests on you guys'
test farm. We are assumed to have already tested as far as possible on our own
Putbacks are done in the name of (sponsor, external engineer), so that Bonwick
knows whose address space to "tear a new address space gap" in, when something
breaks :-) [cf., "The Quality Death Spiral" by Jeff]
Assuming I have this right, does this procedure remain the same for everyone?
It seems fine for an occasional contributor, but I can image an "Outside Jack"
feeling a bit frustrated by the protocol.
If the entity being sponsored is just an engineer, and not the ordered pair
(engineer, specific bug), then within that community, Jack could work with the
same sponsor for all his code, and the sponsor would get a personal feel for
Jack's work. This I think would expedite the mechanics and improve product
quality as well.
I indeed appreciate the tremendous amount of work that has gone in to washing
out the encumbrances from the code, but I can still imagine situations where an
external engineer might need to covered by an NDA, even if this runs a bit
counter to the guiding spirit of Open.
How close am I here to what the current plan envisions?
This message posted from opensolaris.org