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

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

Bryan,

I completely agree with your e-mail. A couple of points inline.

On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 08:07 -0600, Bryan Gartner wrote:
> > |
> > |__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
> 
> These are parts of the service offering for a specific customer.  As with
> using any other toolset, the configuration, development, and content would 
> remain specific, and quite likely internal to that customer.

So the revised diagram would combine these two subsets. This is, indeed,
how HP's model looks. The HP LinuxCOE team is responsible for both
developing add-ins and maintaining the service/instance. I modularized
them because the traditional model (in terms of the SDLC) is to have one
team responsible for making the tool meet the company's specific needs
and another team to actually run the service.

> FWIW, historically the user base of the LinuxCOE service
> have given feedback regarding the service (mostly), and the core team
> has submitted issues/enhancement requests for the toolset.  In essence,
> the model doesn't really need to change very much (except for the core
> team, and as Paul mentioned, the occasional proxy).

This makes perfect sense. Let's make sure that when the original core
team submits issues/enhancement requests, they do so through the sf.net
bug tracker. This will ensure that all of the developers have visibility
of them.