incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kay Schenk <>
Subject Re: questions about the "porting" project
Date Thu, 17 May 2012 01:16:51 GMT
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <>wrote:

> On 2012-05-16, at 16:07 , Kay Schenk wrote:
> > well I am not quite THAT bored at the moment. ;)
> >
> > Thanks for all this. Yes, it did help. Our current situation, as with
> any open source project, is that you can only *build* what you can sustain.
> More or less, yes: the no part being, I would maintain, that as long as
> one is honest about what is being done and can be done, then what counts as
> "sustainable" can, arguably, be relaxed. After all, the original Mac OS X
> builds maintained by the community members numbered two and had day jobs.
> The effort, fuelled by coffee and IM, was in a way not sustainable at all;
> but it inspired and proved a point, and so in the end, became sustainable.
> A key reason? Not the execs at Sun who liked Macs—nearly all—but the
> actuality of a noisy market. That is to say: marketing can help bridge the
> gulf between what is feasible by the resources at hand and what can be
> done, given the needed resources. (A 'resource' is a person, here, whose
> salary, in this case, is in effect, a debt paid back by the users and those
> who supply them with services at a cost.)
> >
> > Mostly I was asking about this to try to get a feel for what we should
> include as "official" builds vs not.
> It's a difficult question, and I do wonder: do we need "official' or
> simply a limit on the size that can be held? When I set up the mirror
> system, I stratified it by "stable" and "contributor" (or the like) builds.

I didn't know this....I don't remember seeing this though it may have

> The "stable" would map to "official," but the point was that it related
> more to builds that were *ready* to go than to builds that demanded
> privileged treatment because they were "official." A ready-to-go build
> could be ready simply because it attracted the right level of interest
> among the right sort of people, not because it had been deemed "official."
> Yes, there will be a degree of competition.
> There may also be—would be—confusion among users, esp. the big ones, like
> governments. In this case, I'd suggest we have more of an argument to
> insist that they actually put their money where their code is.
> As to corporate contributors: they have their own agenda, and it probably
> is pretty much most everyone else's. The point is that they will need to do
> what their clients want, no matter what.
> >
> > Considering Maho and Pedro (with FreeBSD) and Dario (OS/2) are involved
> with the project as committers, why wouldn't we include these builds on the
> mirrors? And, we have a Solaris participant as well now.
> >
> I think that if their builds are ready, great. We *could* instate a simple
> requirement, that Build A must have a roadmap leading to Build A.n+2, if
> not B. That is, two post-A releases, but that is probably not necessary.
> It's only put there, as a suggestion, to give users and contributors a
> sense of where to allocate their own energies.
> > A further discussion I think. I would think any "ports" by AOO
> committers would at some point, be part of the official builds. But more to
> follow...
> Good; yes, this is a worthy discussion, and I wish we could have had these
> at the old OOo community council. Certainly, many of us wanted that. But
> [redacted].

OK, and thanks again for all the history/input.

> cheers
> Louis


"Well, life has a funny way of sneaking up on you
 And life has a funny way of helping you out
 Helping you out."
                            -- "Ironic", Alanis Morissette

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message