From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailserv2.iuinc.com (IDENT:qmailr@mailserv2.iuinc.com [206.245.164.55]) by puffin.external.hp.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA19288 for ; Fri, 12 May 2000 15:37:54 -0600 Message-ID: <20000512153747.A19135@puffin.external.hp.com> Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 15:37:47 -0600 From: Philipp Rumpf To: Grant Grundler , parisc-linux@thepuffingroup.com Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] Tree Issues References: <20000509103707.A13782@puffin.external.hp.com> <200005110043.RAA24953@milano.cup.hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <200005110043.RAA24953@milano.cup.hp.com>; from Grant Grundler on Wed, May 10, 2000 at 05:43:46PM -0700 List-ID: On Wed, May 10, 2000 at 05:43:46PM -0700, Grant Grundler wrote: > > 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 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? > Hard Stuff: > 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. I doubt there is any reason to have two userspace trees as well - even if it should happen for some reason they certainly shouldn't introduce binary incompatibilities. > 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 I believe the problems in TPG's tree are not sufficiently explained by that. In fact, while the resulting code's design and implementation are bad, I don't think that the real issue is with the contributors' coding skills. > > 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. Other Linux ports have been done (basically) by one person - maybe you can't see _me_ being successful, and I'm not sure whether I disagree yet. OTOH, I don't really want to find out. There are other persons around that I hope might join me, and I have access to the changes in the TPG tree. Philipp Rumpf