Changes between Version 3 and Version 4 of Topics-2012-04-26

Timestamp:

04/26/12 16:30:29 (12 years ago)

Author:

alonbl

Comment:

Alon's comments

Topics-2012-04-26

@@ -13 +13 @@
 ACK and merge, or NACK.
 
+''@ALON'': The bool branch is the one for discussion, it is the last issue we have in building openvpn in various of configurations without warnings/errors. The question is what course should we take? stdbool (unlike its name, is far from being standard) or just rename the bool to obool to reduce risk (we actually do not change anything), achieve compiler portability and achieve C++ compatibility. I recommend taking the rename approach.
+
 == Git repo layout ==
 
@@ -24 +26 @@
 
 The ''openvpn'' and ''openvpn-build'' subprojects can be developed fairly independently. Do we need/want to host both subprojects in the same place?
+
+''@ALON'': We have few more new repositories: tap-windows, easy-rsa. Is there any reason '''NOT''' to host them at the same place? I just cannot think of any...
 
 = Suggested changes to development processes =
@@ -51 +55 @@
 ![2] This can probably be accounted by fewer barriers to entry, for example not requiring subscribing to openvpn-devel list prior to sending in a patch. How great the impact is probably depends on the project and is hard to estimate before trying it out.
 
+''@ALON'': Some discussion was [http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.network.openvpn.devel/6095 here]. !GitHub supports many features that SF.net lacks, RSS of changesets, review and comment, the entire merge process and more. Mainly it supports finer grain privileges for multiple repositories. I don't think there is one single advantage in keeping using the SF.net, especially if the OpenVPN project is only using git feature of SF.net.
+
 == ACK -> maintenance responsibility? ==
 
@@ -63 +69 @@
  * Moves away responsibility from the original developer
 
+''@ALON'': If useful code gets in and there is no active long term maintainer for this "useful" feature, what can we say about the quality of the implementation or user support?
+
+''@ALON'': Original developer should be defined properly, by my definition James is an original developer of OpenVPN, while he did not write 100% of the code... A patch contributer is far from being "original developer", as there is no real relationship between the contributer and the project, how did the current process defined "responsibility" of this contributer? Let's say contributer succeeded in getting his code into the tree by someone ACK, then after a release, there were issues with his changeset. Is he is obligated to fix his code? how can you enforce this? In my view whoever ACKed is accountable for this code for long term, this does not reduce the cooperation with contributer, just define clearly who is accountable for changes accepted to the code base.
+
 == OpenVPN 2.4 ==
 
 Should OpenVPN 2.4 release cycle focus on cleaning up the codebase, for example integrate new features (e.g. IPv6) better into the old codebase?
-
-
-