[parisc-linux] Tree Issues
Wed, 10 May 2000 21:16:41 -0400
At 17:43 2000-05-10 -0700, you wrote:
>Philipp Rumpf wrote:
>> I just returned from spending a month in California working on stuff
>> not related to PA-RISC (and a week here trying to get back into
>> normal life).
>I hope things went well...certainly sounded interesting...
>> I am going to try to set up a sourceforge.net project to keep my
>> modifications publicly-visible now; while I'm not perfectly happy
>> with announcing anything before people can actually look at my code,
>> I couldn't think of any better way to do it.
>I was somewhat (not totally) surprised by this. I had to think about
>several things before replying:
>o what to do with hardware HP and/or TPG/LC have loaned you?
>o should you keep CVS access rights to TPG's tree?
>o why are you unhappy with TPG's CVS tree?
>o why don't you want to talk publicly about it?
>o what is the effective impact?
>o I don't see why HP would want you to return any HW...as long as
> you keep using it for developement and post those results.
>o You are not so stupid as to malicously mangle TPG's CVS tree.
> Keeping CVS access should be fine.
>o Not sure about the net impact. TPG and HP folks will continue working
> using TPG's tree. I'm pretty sure the debian release will be based
> on TPG's tree.
> But I can think of several excellent reasons why it's better for
> you to publish/manage your own tree:
> + you can change everything as often as you like - you'll be happier
> and make more changes.
> + You stop wasting time with merging your changes to TPG/LC's tree.
> + Those changes are visible "immediately" instead of waiting for
> you to commit code. (which has been a serious problem, IMHO).
> + You need the experience. Working with others is seldom really easy.
> And keeping people motivated to work on stuff that one needs help
> with requires such experience. I'm talking about:
> and similar conflicts with others.
> - Someone else (who probably knows less about it) will end up
> merging your interesting changes to TPG/LC's tree.
> This is in addition to regular merges with linus' tree.
>o I don't understand why you are so unhappy with TPG's CVS tree.
> Certainly there are design and implementation problems in that tree.
> But such compromises are necessary for cooperation. Until we have
> more data about what works/doesn't work, such compromises are part
> of sharing code. I didn't get everything I wanted either
> (eg do_irq_mask()).
> I assume you aren't talking about bug fixes.
>o "Success" in a cooperative project like this requires constructive
> communication. Dave Miller/Martin Mares replied constructively to
> my e-mail inqueries despite the fact that (a) I'm a linux "novice" and
> (b) they have NFC who I am. I'm very impressed with both of them.
> And I think they also benefitted from at least a few of the things
> I wrote them.
>> I do not think this fork has to be a permanent one, though I can't
>> help thinking it is likely to be;
>I suspect it will be too - working with others can be harder than
>working alone. But on a "project" of this scope, I don't see one
>person being successful.
>> I will be happy to talk to the
>> TPG/LC tree maintainers once I have a tree which I am happier with
>> than I am with the current cvs tree.
>Yes...but will they want to talk to you?
>If HP helps TPG/LC run the tree, do they need to?
>I hope you haven't "burned your bridges" here...
>Anyway, thanks for telling us!
>And I still look forward to future technical discussions with you!
Phillip: THX for all You've done so far
Grant: THX for that reply.
Could someone find a way to keep this group together? Yes, it is _much_
harder to work as a team (especially such a widespread one) than
individually. But potential rewards are also greater, since the obtainable
results are bigger. Now, as I haven't contributed anything, my input should
not count as much as I hope it could, but could maybe some compromise be
reached? The worst disappointment comes when one realises, how little would
the compromise _really_ cost had one tried to at least discuss (and
negotiate) it. Pluribus unum, Viribus unitis, Nec Hercules contra plures,
and so on...
Otherwise, I may start committing code, and we'll see what You all think of
the effort then...;)