Version 7 (modified by 14 years ago) (diff) | ,
---|
Development/testing issues
Beaker test framework
Should we start configuring a dedicated testing framework for OpenVPN? This idea will be presented by mattock.
- Rationale
- Would allow testing that OpenVPN works on a large number of predefined platforms and configurations
- Replaces part of the manual testing effort by testing the external behavior of the application automatically
- Would allow spotting bugs early
- Limitations
- Only tests for external behavior of the application
- Does not replace human testing for those classes problems which are difficult/impossible to test programmatically.
Continuous integration server
Should we build a continuous integration / automated release management server? This idea will be presented by mattock.
- Rationale
- Would allow spotting build problems early on by building "allmerged" and reporting developers of build problems
- Would reduce developer frustration
- Would allow automated packaging of openvpn-testing for various platforms and publishing those on a web server
- The above would translate to increased use of openvpn-testing, leading to earlier bug reports and would thus make the release process (new code -> acceptance to testing -> acceptance to stable -> release) faster
- Could also allow centralized automated searching of code problems
- Limitations
- Does not replace human testing
- Only tests the build process (and possibly code problems)
Developer bounties
Should we have a bounty system for writing missing features? Similar systems are in use by several other projects, e.g. freeswitch, pfSense and Funambol. This idea will be presented by ecrist.
- Rationale
- Would allow users to prioritize feature additions through compensation.
- Would help achieve greater interest of developers in users' requests and needs.
- Implementation ideas
- Bounty funds would be setup and maintained by a non-developer (ecrist?) and held. This assures payment upon completion and assures feature is completed before bounty is paid.
- Multiple users could fund a bounty for intensive feature additions which may warrant higher payouts.
- Developers setup up accounts and 'claim' tasks
- After a specific timeout a task becomes available to another user, unless progress can be shown
- Payment could be divided into multiple phases to motivate developers to maintain the code they've written. For example:
- 50% payout for a commit to main tree
- 25% upon release in production (provided bugs are fixed/etc)
- 25% 6 months after release (provided bugs are fixed/etc)
- The above would also guarantee the quality of the code
- Handling monetary transactions
- Could be handled through an external foundation / organization (e.g. http://www.spi-inc.org/projects)
- We could establish our own foundation for the purpose
- Licensing and copyright
- Developer would have to use the BSD license for the bounty features
- This would allow the project to relicense the code under GPLv2 (while mentioning the original author)
- This would allow both developer (payee) and payer to use the code any way they wish
- Developer would have to use the BSD license for the bounty features