Paul Durrant wrote: > Andrew Gallatin wrote: >> [ trimmed the lists I'm not a member of, to avoid bounces ] >> >> Garrett D'Amore wrote: >> >>> 6) Rules for integration would be far, far looser than ON: >>> >>> * code has to compile >>> * you have to assert that you have tested it >>> * no long term support commitment required >>> * no webrti, instead just an e-mail based review/approval for now >>> * (what do other consolidations use for rti approval?) >>> * code review still required >>> * include documentation (man page) as part of integration >>> * no ARC approval required >>> * can import ON Consolidation Private interfaces >>> * no duplicates of stuff in ON or other consolidations without >>> justification >>> * sign-off by one of the Core Contributors >> >> As an employee of a small IHV, I have to say that this sounds >> awesome to me. It took us nearly 2 years to get our completed >> driver integrated, and it was very time consuming (as opposed to >> a few weeks of time each for Linux and FreeBSD). So it would be >> very nice to have an alternate distribution channel with a lower >> barrier to entry to use for any new drivers we write. >> > > I'd always favoured a consolidation such as this, but without the ON > consolidation private interfaces. That way it would not have to have the > build-for-build correspondence with ON. >
Actually, the primary attraction to an IHV is the build-for-build correspondence to ON, which allows the use of consolidation private interfaces like GLDv3. Otherwise, we could just offer drivers from our own download site. Drew _______________________________________________ driver-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/driver-discuss
