Interesting. I like it. Actually, just the other day I was looking at OpenDarwin web site.
http://www.opendarwin.org/ Reasons why SAP is behaving like this are very simmilar if not the same as Apple's reasons. Quote: "Since it was first released in March 1999, Darwin has been the open-source OS technology underlying Apple's Mac OS X operating system, with all development being managed and hosted by Apple at http://developer.apple.com/darwin/. Since Apple's Mac OS X releases are based directly on the live Darwin CVS repository, it has been necessary to have a fairly comprehensive procedural framework in place for registering and managing Darwin developers to ensure a good level of quality control. While this system has served its intended purpose quite well, it is desirable to further increase the collaboration between Apple and the open source community beyond the current model. OpenDarwin.org, jointly founded in April 2002 by Internet Software Consortium, Inc. (ISC) and Apple, is an attempt to take cooperative Darwin development to the next level. Membership in the OpenDarwin project and access to its works are open to everyone. The project is also fully independent, with control over its own web site, project news, bug tracking information and CVS repository, as well as any other services that the community owners may wish to provide. Neither Apple nor ISC take any responsibility for, or exercise any editorial control over, the OpenDarwin project." So how about "OpenSAPDB" project? We can have CVS that would contain only files we modify, as Daniel described? Or do interested people prefer patches? (You can allways make a patch later, if you have all files anyway...?) Or should we mirror SAP CVS, as sap_ag branch in CVS, and do development in branches started from it? Is OSDL Linux-only shop? What exactly can you provide, appart from a box? (BTW, SF has "compile farm", and provides more then just Linux/Intel) -- Yours, Andrej Falout, http://www.falout.com/disclaimer.html Visit the OpenSource alternative, Aubit 4gl: http://aubit4gl.sourceforge.net PLEASE NOTE: All HTML email sent to me WILL BE DELETED AUTOMATICALLY WITHOUT READING. In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says... > > We would be interested in helping. OSDL is chartered > to provide Open Source developers with resources to build > enhancements into Linux and it's Open Software Stack. > > We can provide a Linux/Intel development platform, and large > (1 -> 16 CPU ) machines for development. In addition, > we have several database performance workloads which run with SAP DB which can > be used to test patches and measure improvements. > > Best of all, it's free :) > > Our resources are tied to what we call Projects. Creating a Project is a > simple one-page Web form. ( http://www.osdl.org/projects/project.html ) > We've already talked to our management, and Project approval won't be a > problem. > I'll volunteer to help with the Web-paper work :) > To move forward, we'd need this: > - Someone to step forward and be the Project Co-ordinator. ( manage the list of > project members, maintain communication. We'd prefer that the Co-ordinator be > a non-OSDl person ) > - project people need to be OSDL Associates. Again, it's free, a simple one > page web-form. > > We have a current Sourceforge project for the performance test > (http://sourceforge.net/projects/osdldbt) > which also has a mailing list. > We don't directly provide CVS ( we normally use Sourceforge ) but we'd > certainly help admin > a repository. We could use our test kit on a development machine to provide a > 'nightly build' > kinda environment if that sounds good. > > What do you all think? Any takers? > cliffw > > > > On Tue, 2002-09-24 at 12:16, Andrej Falout wrote: > > > Maybe the temporary answer is to collect all patches provided by community. > > > Anyone? > > > > Andrej, > > > > This could be a good thing. It would allow the SAP folks to utilise > > those patches which are deemed appropriate for their environment, while > > still maintaining access to fixes/features/bugs for the rest of us. > > > > In that context, maybe it works to think of it like the Linux kernel > > model, with contributors providing many patches, but only the ( > > benevilent-dictator | salary-paying-junta ) gets the say on what goes > > into the offically blessed code base... but there's nothing to stop > > anyone else patching their code as they see fit, if the resources are > > available. > > > > Most people will still use the offical code, but some will try the other > > stuff out. If feedback can be captured through lists or forums, we can > > all know what works for better or worse, and everyone can benefit. Also, > > if the "alternative" patches work better, are more portable, and end up > > becoming a fork, so be it - it'll only happen if there's a need. > > > > And yeah, I agree we could look at the Firebird model... (having said > > that, I know of local businesses using it to keep costs down for > > clients) > > > > Richard. > > _______________________________________________ > > sapdb.general mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://listserv.sap.com/mailman/listinfo/sapdb.general > > > _______________________________________________ sapdb.general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://listserv.sap.com/mailman/listinfo/sapdb.general
