Re: [Embedlets-dev] Re: CVS Code tree

[Nicola K. B. <nic...@ap...>]

Andrzej Jan Taramina wrote, On 07/03/2003 22.36:
> Topic tags:[ARCH][JAPL][WIRING][DOCS][MGMT][STRATEGY][NEWBIE]
...
>>As soon as I can get a good tagged source tree I'll start creating test
>>cases built on top of Cork, with some device access... but I want to know what
>>changes (and how) before I start having to replace my source tree on every
>>update.
> 
> No problem....it won't be too long.
> 
> How about this for a temporary solution......I'll post full 
> source/distribution trees to CVS sooner (ie. this weekend), rather than 
> later.  

Good :-)

In OS CVS is the real scratchpad for all, like the mailing list is the 
discussion place.

> However, I think to keep a handle on things and to minimize the impact on 
> other people's work, we should allocate some responsibilities as to who 
> "owns" certain pieces.  The part I'm most worried about is churn in the 
> Embedlet Core Interfaces and Outpost Core Services, which would have 
> widespread impact if the changes are not managed.

Testcases and discussions.

You will see that people naturally get to work on certain parts, and 
decide that informally on the ML. It works well, and there is no 
"formal" need of assigning things, that maybe don't get followed for 
instant lack of time.

For the "commmon" parts, testcases runing regularly via a cron job are 
the only real way of keeping things stable, also for when developers 
leave the group for any reason. I'd be happy to add this project to the 
ones run by Gump http://jakarta.apache.org/gump/

> It seems we have already stratified to a great degree, with you on JAPL, Ted 
> taking the Graphical Wiring (hey Ted....the current Outpost RI has enough 
> dynamic capability that you can already start thinking/working on this!), me 
> on Core (embedlet spec and core Outpost RI services), Chris is very 
> interested in the Persistence Service and Gregg is interested in doing a Mesh 
> inter-system communications service.  If we keep this responsibility 
> structure for the moment it will allow us to go forward quickly with a 
> minimum of disruptive impact.
> 
> Does this make sense?

Hmmm, responsibility is of everybody to the same degree. If we keep 
things too separated, knowledge gets shared less... and the project 
starts depending too much on a single person. Yes, there are concern 
areas, and parts of code that some prefer, but as you have seen 
yourself, a natural layering has already occurred ;-)

-- 
Nicola Ken Barozzi                   nic...@ap...
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------