> I've been very quite on the mailing lists and wiki lately, but i'm going
> to try and changed that. :)
Cool. I've been wondering where you've been!
> So far I don't have any problem with moving over to SourceForge, but I
> think we should give it a little more time, just to make sure it's right.
How much time do you think is reasonable?
I was actually thinking of making the move gradually. First set up
the jos project account at SourceForge and turning on the features
we don't have. Make an announcement, links on the web pages
and let that settle in. Then moving CVS to SourceForge. Then
moving mailing lists to SourceForge. Should it all be done at once?
> > access to the kernel right? So, it would seem logical that each
> > "product" (which comes down to source that a single "cvs commit
> > group" should have access too) should be broken up into a
> > separate sourceforge project. We'll then tie all the separate
> > sourceforge projects into the overall jos project through our website
> > and the wiki.
>
> I don't like the idea of setting up lot's of separate sourceforge
> projects for the core parts of JOS (kernel, jvm, drivers, class
> libraries, etc), I don't mind so much for applications thought.
IMHO, applications should definitely go into separate projects (esp
pure java ones since they are really independent of jos). As far as
the more core parts of JOS, I would think minimalizing what's in
and what's out of the base kernel would be the best strategy. And
this would be reflected by what's in the jos kernel project's cvs
versus what's in separate projects.
If we can design a driver interface for example, that would allow
people to develop jos drivers separately from the kernel
development, it would be better for everyone involved. finding,
gathering and integrating the separate parts back into a
distributable os would be the job of a separate project, the jos
distribution project.
I'm not saying everything needs to be separated out. I definitely
think the base kernel, the jvm, and maybe the base
implementations of generic drivers (like the vga driver) do belong in
the jos kernel project (and its cvs).
> Anyway I wouldn't imagine there being a big problem adding the access list
> functionality, we are currently using with cvs to the sourceforge cvs.
Agreed.
> Another thing I noticed in the site FAQ was this.
>
> Who can host with SourceForge?
> We're trying to keep it simple, and chose to rely on the work of a very
> talented group, the Open Source Initiative. If your software utilizes
> one of the OSI's approved licenses, we'd love to offer you hosting at
> SourceForge. Software that falls under other licenses will require
> further scrutiny, but is not altogether ruled out. In the end, we're
> looking to further Open Source software development, and will approve
> projects accordingly.
>
> We currently don't have a project wide license, I think this is something
> we should work on before moving over.
I agree. Although, the entire discussion of a JOS source license
was postponed to avoid distracting the core developers from getting
the first kernel out. Is now the time to bring this up (and probably
slow down development while the issue is discussed)?
I think we might as well just get it over with (no time like the
present). Especially now that we have a voting mechanism in
place for major project decisions.
-iain
_______________________________________________
General maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://jos.org/mailman/listinfo/general
