Re: [Linuxcoe-devel] HP LinuxCOE versus Open Source LinuxCOE

[Shank, J. R. <js...@hp...>]

On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 15:28 -0600, Bryan Gartner wrote:
> I have always envisioned the LinuxCOE as an umbrella project, with the
> first fileset to be delivered called SystemDesigner.

The umbrella project concept works for me. I'll try an ASCII art diagram
to see if I'm visualizing it correctly:

LinuxCOE Project
|__Open Souce LinuxCOE (sub-)Project
|  |__System Designer Code
|  |__Waystation Code
|  |__User Documentation
|
|__HP Proprietary LinuxCOE Project (A.K.A. LinuxCOE Integration Project)
|  |__HP Proprietary Modules Development
|  |__HP Specific Documentation
|
|__HP Instance of LinuxCOE
   |__Global Waystations
   |__System Designer Instance
   |__HP Proprietary Modules
   |__Customized Documentation

Does this look good?

For the latter two main sub-projects, think of OSLP as someone else's
Open Source project that we want to modify for use in HP. The
Integration sub-project would be responsible for downloading OSLP's
code, creating add-ons that work with that code, and then providing the
modified code/add-ons to the group that actually ran LinuxCOE as a
service for the HP customer. It makes a lot more sense to me to think of
it this way.

> I don't know that we can collapse all support functions onto SF.net.
> I would expect our current SR process to remain, and there will still
> be internal mailing lists/irc/...  

We need to be pretty clear on how LinuxCOE is supported. Using the above
diagram, there should be SRs for HP proprietary stuff, but change
requests to the Open Source code base should go through the SourceForge
tools. I imagine that we'll probably do a bit of redirecting/educating
the first few months to ensure that requests end up in the right place.
However, I think it would be a disservice to our Open Source Community
members to not post change requests to a place where they can see and
comment on them.