[gentoo-dev] Re: eudev project announcement

[Duncan]

Walter Dnes posted on Sat, 15 Dec 2012 12:53:41 -0500 as excerpted:

> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 07:21:21AM +0000, Duncan wrote
>> Walter Dnes posted on Sat, 15 Dec 2012 01:33:04 -0500 as excerpted:
>>
>>> Actually, for political reasons, I hope that eudev does submit a
>>> bunch bugs+patches, and gets them rejected.  Then whenever anyone
>>> complains about not sharing code, show them a bunch of WONTFIX emails
>>> from systemd/udev maintainers.
>>
>> This attitude is and the described events would be... unfortunate.
>>
>> For the reasons you list, I don't believe people should be /surprised/
>> if many such bugs+patches are rejected after submission, but that
>> wouldn't make it any less unfortunate, and IMO, hoping they DO get
>> rejected is the wrong attitude to have.
>
> I should've been clearer in my email, rather than a train-of-thought
> approach...
>
> 1) For appearance's sake and to make our position better in outsiders'
> view, I *HOPE* that eudev developers are co-operative in regards to
> sharing patches with systemd/udev.
>
> 2) Given past history, I *EXPECT* at least some bugs to be "resolved"
> by the systemd/udev developers as WONTFIX.  It was their attitude that
> led to eudev in the first place.

OK, /that/ I agree with.  Keep the two-way open from our side so that 
it's their decision, not ours.  Given history, I can't see anyone being 
terribly surprised if they reject as WONTFIX, but let it be their 
decision, not ours.

There's as many differences as parallels, but I keep thinking of the 
openoffice/libreoffice split.  The libreoffice folks bent over backward 
to keep the license and code something that Oracle/IBM could still use, 
tho they chose not to.  But that was their decision, not the decision of 
the libreoffice folks.  If the systemd-udev/eudev split endures, we could 
surely do a lot worse than libreoffice and still count it success, and I 
think we'd do well to emulate them in our bending over backward to retain 
legal and code reusability between the projects.  If they choose not to 
take advantage, well, that's on them.  As with lo/ooo, it may be that the 
code diverges over time, but let's not throw up artificial barriers to 
sharing immediately, nor hope that they don't take advantage, even if we 
won't be surprised should they chose not to.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman