Perfect example for open repo & ticketing
folknology
stack provides a great example of how Xmos and their customers could
benefit from having their software (network stack in this case) not
only opensourced but in a transparent repository.
The thread :https://www.xcore.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=877
Here customer 'BEBDigitalAudio' finds an issue with the UDP
implementation, he also works out a fix. At the same time and unknown
to everyone outside of Xmos this problem is know and they are working
on a fix the other side of the wall. Worse still is the response that
Xmos won't provide the fix until the next version. They also won't
state when they will throw the next official zip bomb over the
information wall for us.
Clearly an opensource git based repository and ticketing would allow
not only visibility on the issue, pointing to fixes, but would also
allow Xmos customer to pull from the fix code and start testing and
using it. Customers could also start contributing their own fixes and
get these issues dealt with earlier so that everyone benefits.
Thoughts?
regards
Al
Interactive Matter (Marcus)
extremely good example. Just two points:
1) I would also state that the customers can create a private patched
library and _apply_ that their fix goes into the production software –
else someone could think that XMOS would loose control over their
software.
2) I would not bring git in the game that early. Having a public
repository is enough for us. Git is just a software to achieve this.
And don't get me wrong: Git is the perfect choice for this! I would
never ever want to go back and deal wih all the oddities of SVN.
Marcus
Al Wood
<mar...@interactive-matter.org> wrote:
> Hi Al,
>
> extremely good example. Just two points:
> 1) I would also state that the customers can create a private patched
> library and _apply_ that their fix goes into the production software –
> else someone could think that XMOS would loose control over their
> software.
Yup agreed
> 2) I would not bring git in the game that early. Having a public
> repository is enough for us. Git is just a software to achieve this.
> And don't get me wrong: Git is the perfect choice for this! I would
> never ever want to go back and deal wih all the oddities of SVN.
Well why waste time with a non distributed source code repository
system. It makes your above point easier for custom and for Xmos to
merge the changes back in if it feels like it. I think Git (or any
distributed VCS) is even better than a non distributed VCS such as
subversion because it defaults to managing forking and thus provides
better control for Xmos when they want to merge with any proprietary
of non-opensource code (this could even be closed customer code). I
have found Git much better for these sorts of purposes (mixing
commercial derived and opensource forks).
>
> On Nov 21, 1:20 pm, folknology <a...@folknology.com> wrote:
>> This thread which deals with issues around UDP in the Xmos network
>> stack provides a great example of how Xmos and their customers could
>> benefit from having their software (network stack in this case) not
>> only opensourced but in a transparent repository.
>>
>> The thread :https://www.xcore.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=877
>>
>> Here customer 'BEBDigitalAudio' finds an issue with the UDP
>> implementation, he also works out a fix. At the same time and unknown
>> to everyone outside of Xmos this problem is know and they are working
>> on a fix the other side of the wall. Worse still is the response that
>> Xmos won't provide the fix until the next version. They also won't
>> state when they will throw the next official zip bomb over the
>> information wall for us.
>>
>> Clearly an opensource git based repository and ticketing would allow
>> not only visibility on the issue, pointing to fixes, but would also
>> allow Xmos customer to pull from the fix code and start testing and
>> using it. Customers could also start contributing their own fixes and
>> get these issues dealt with earlier so that everyone benefits.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> regards
>> Al
>
Interactive Matter (Marcus)
On Nov 21, 2:25 pm, Al Wood <a...@folknology.com> wrote:
[…]
> > 2) I would not bring git in the game that early. Having a public
> > repository is enough for us. Git is just a software to achieve this.
> > And don't get me wrong: Git is the perfect choice for this! I would
> > never ever want to go back and deal wih all the oddities of SVN.
>
> Well why waste time with a non distributed source code repository
> system. It makes your above point easier for custom and for Xmos to
> merge the changes back in if it feels like it. I think Git (or any
> distributed VCS) is even better than a non distributed VCS such as
> subversion because it defaults to managing forking and thus provides
> better control for Xmos when they want to merge with any proprietary
> of non-opensource code (this could even be closed customer code). I
> have found Git much better for these sorts of purposes (mixing
> commercial derived and opensource forks).
>
I strongly vote for git.
I just wanted (and failed) to make the point that we should discuss
organizational and tehnical question separately.
Marcus
russ
On Nov 21, 5:25 am, Al Wood <a...@folknology.com> wrote:
> On 21 November 2010 12:34, Interactive Matter (Marcus)
>
> <mar...@interactive-matter.org> wrote:
> > Hi Al,
>
> > extremely good example. Just two points:
> > 1) I would also state that the customers can create a private patched
> > library and _apply_ that their fix goes into the production software –
> > else someone could think that XMOS would loose control over their
> > software.
>
> Yup agreed
http://groups.google.com/group/xmos-foundation/browse_thread/thread/dd23f7f462cd24a2
where we can get thoughts out, and do an initial vote at end of
November.
We need to work on voting procedure, but at least we can start
capturing issues.