incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Robert Burrell Donkin" <>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Stonehenge
Date Thu, 13 Nov 2008 13:41:51 GMT
On 11/12/08, Bertrand Delacretaz <> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Paul Fremantle <> wrote:
>> ...The full proposal is here:
> That says "future contributions could depend on proprietary systems
> such as Microsoft .Net or commercial JEE servers", which IIUC means
> that some parts of Stonehenge might not be buildable or testable using
> open source tools.

good point

apache has developed open source Java stuff for years, even when it
was a closed, proprietary platform. but the status of java (closed but
no charge) was well and widely known, and open source tools were
developed to build and test. this is probably less true in this case.

IMHO effective communication to new users and developers will be
important, and contributors need to be comfortable working with open
source people and tools. so i'd like to throw out a few points for

1. There should be no barrier for ports of open source code dependent
on a proprietary platform to an open one (for example .net to -
hypothetically - mono). One great thing about FOSS is that the code
gains a life independent of it's creators. I think that everyone
involved needs to be comfortable about this possibility, and accept
that it's fine to happen on shore (as part of the project) rather than
off shore.

2. when developing open source software for proprietary platforms,
using open, publicly document APIs is important. AIUI this is the case
for .NET

3. payment for development tools to contribute to the project may
prove a barrier to new contributions. apache has always used open
source build and test tools. this allows anyone with energy to dive in
and contribute. i would hope that there would be no barriers to
supporting open source build and test environments if volunteers
stepped up to create and maintain them.

4. running continuous integration on shore may require licenses. it's
important that contributors understand this and don't just start
diving in. it may be better to start off shore.

> We certainly already have some such code in our projects, and I'm no
> against that - but I'd like the Stonehenge people to keep such parts
> well separated, to allow people who only use open source tools to
> benefit from the project as well.

pioneering something like might be useful more

- robert

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message