"Shawn Walker" <swalker at opensolaris.org> writes:
> On Jan 28, 2008 11:33 AM, John Plocher <John.Plocher at sun.com> wrote:
>> Ben Rockwood wrote:
>> > Let me put this another way... is the only engineering related reason to
>> > participate in the OpenSolaris community to putback to the ON gate?
>>
>> [...obviously OpenSolaris is more than simply the ON gate...]
>>
>>
>> foreach $X in { Thunderbird, WordPress, ApacheHTTPD, Sendmail,...}
>> ... Is the only reason to participate in the $X
>> community to putback to the $X gate?
>> end
>>
>>
>> I'd say, 99% of the time, yes!
>>
>> Lets optimize for the common expected use case, not the fringe
>> "I want to play by myself and fork my own" exception, which is
>> IMO already handled by the CDDL. If you want to go off and do
>> your own thing, go for it - the *Community* has no obligation
>> to help antisocial efforts that will just fragment itself.
>
> So, Belenix, SchilliX, and Nexenta are anti-social?
>
> I believe that telling people "we don't like what you're doing; go do
> it elsewhere" is actually the real cause of harmful fragmentation.
>
> Encouraging developers to innovate within the bounds of our community
> and providing a place for them to collaborate helps prevent that.
>
> That hardly seems like a "fringe case."
>
> If anything it's a sign that a bigger need in the community isn't
> being properly met.
>
>> OTOH, if you are trying to figure out how a community can
>> encourage both evolutionary and revolutionary changes to itself,
>> the processes referenced earlier (ON dev process, ARC...)
>> are designed to easily and actively support both. Maybe there
>> are other viable options than simply becoming yet another Apache
>> Project...
>
> Those dev processes seem to severely restrict "revolutionary changes"
> rather than encourage them.
The bounds of change are set by the release binding of the
destination, and the requested binding.
If you had a Major release gate to integrate to, you could do
practically anything (within the bounds of sane architecture, but
ignoring most other things).
-- Rich
