Re: Public Access to Perforce?

I fully agree with you. But this not affect "open source"ness.
I'd rather call it open development.

rik

David Rhodus wrote:

>On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 16:47:02 +0400, Roman Kurakin <rik_at_cronyx.ru> wrote:
>  
>
>>David Rhodus wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 01:04:03 -0400, Chris BeHanna <chris_at_behanna.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>   Forgive me if this already exists.  I searched the list archives,
>>>>google, and freebsd.org and did not find any way for non-committers to
>>>>have read-only access to the p4 repo.
>>>>
>>>>   Is there a read-only account that the general public could use?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>With the perforce trees being hidden away without public access to the
>>>changes, this makes the FreeBSD project no longer an open source
>>>project.
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>This hides only development proccess, not a stable result.
>>If you don't have access to my home disks were I keep my
>>intermediate code with additional debug/hacks and so on
>>while I am debuggin new functionality would affect open
>>source status of results of my work?
>>
>>rik
>>    
>>
>
>No this is not what I'm talking about, I don't think that level of
>development work is able to sustain here.  The development work should
>be done in the public cvs tree were it is open to public scrutiny and
>were a section of the community can help on the development process. 
>The current method of merging large commits back into the cvs tree
>from the perforce tree's should be inexcusable by the FreeBSD
>community.  If perforce is the choice for FreeBSD a line needs to be
>drawn and completely move over to it.  Then when the commercial
>problem comes from someone, well, we now have the foundation.  I'm
>sure they can work something out with perforce.  Even if that means
>contracting someone for ~80hrs of development work to write a perforce
>clone.
>
>The FreeBSD project has a -stable and a -current tree.  This system
>has been under heavy abuse for the past several years now which is one
>of the leading causes of the major bulk of the development work to be
>pushed into perforce trees.  This issue and the overwhelming unneeded
>complexity the code base has grown into are the reasons the
>development work is now being done were the public isn't able to
>access the code until a large commit hits the cvs tree. These large
>commits are a not harder to audit than a small steady stream of
>changes, which has always been the preferred method.
>
>
>  
>