Date: Sat, 22 Jul 1995 00:28:56 -0500 From: rkw@dataplex.net (Richard Wackerbarth) To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Support charges ( was Re: SUP target for -STABLE...) Message-ID: <v02130502ac363765843a@[199.183.109.242]>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>There's also the question of what to do when we get a problem report >for an area of the system that's clearly in the domain of someone NOT >working for the organization. We can't pass the buck to a volunteer, >so we need to make sure that we have total coverage of the system >replicated in the support organization. This would effectively mean >creating a "shadow FreeBSD Project" of sorts, which would take some >finesse since it means that the corporation is going to have its own >CVS tree and its own lineage of FreeBSD releases or face an even less >desirable situation where volunteers are co-opted into working for the >org or get their toes stepped on when someone in the corporation >rushes in to fix a bug that they're contractually obligated to fix >quickly and don't have much choice about. I think this is the crux of the problem. If you have a real support organization, they will soon INSIST that THEY have control of THEIR source tree. Once they implement a fix, it would have to become mainstream. New code entering the tree would be required to pass significant testing, etc. In short, you would soon have another BSDI. I am not sure that that could co-exist with the volunteer organization. Thought for discussion: What if the "for pay" group were the release engineers and responsible for the changes that go into the -STABLE tree? Volunteers could only submit to -current or through the group engineers. ---- Richard Wackerbarth rkw@dataplex.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?v02130502ac363765843a>