SourceNav release ...
Fri Jan 18 18:13:00 GMT 2002
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> IMHO, the basic problem is to render SN into an active project.
> As RH apparently is not developing actively anymore, one
> solution would be to convert SN into a real OpenSource
> community project.
> From my POV, it's only the lack of active maintainers
> which currently lets appear SN as "dumped dead code junk".
> But the only way to achieve something of this kind IMHO
> would be somebody (the maintainer - who is it? Ian, you?)
> to show some visible initiative - Currently, SN appears
> not only to be dead, but to unmaintained.
Well, who is going to do the work? It seems the real problem
here is one of perception. Currently, there is no person who
has the "job" of maintaining SN. Ian helps out in his spare time
but it is not part of his job description. Even if we had such a
person devoted to SN full time, would that magically produce
patches from the community? History would indicate that a
couple of patches would be donated, but not many. Read over
the mailing list archives if you don't believe me.
Khamis Abuelkomboz wrote:
> I find your input great. we need an "open" way to add work
> into SN, I had the idea about taking the current redhat SN
> and provide my own SN release, basicly to rework the GUI
> and extend the existing parsers.
There are two problems here and they depend on how you define "open".
First, there is the issue of how patches are integrated into the tree
and who gets write access to the CVS. An open patch review seems to
be the most fair way to deal with this issue. Second, there is the RH
copyright assignment paperwork. Both Khamis and I have refused to
sign these agreements which means it could be difficult to move forward
with the current hosting situation.
Timothy Shead wrote:
> Sounds like SN ought to move to SourceForge - if Red Hat
> isn't going to maintain it, there needs to be a clean
> break, so people stop waiting for Red Hat to do the work
> ... which is not to complain about Red Hat -
> they're the ones who GPL'd SN, making such a move possible.
This might be a good idea, but I am not certain. Putting it up on
SourceForge does not sprinkle the project with magic pixy dust.
Work will still need to be done, and that means someone will
actually need to do the work or pay someone to do it. You can't
just rely on the "net community" to come along and fix problems.
This "just turn is into an open source project" idea was already
attempted, in 2000. The result is where we are now, wondering
what to try next.
More information about the Sourcenav