+972 52-548-6969
Releasing Open Source
Chad Myers asks in the ALT.Net mailing list:
Why are OSS folks to scared of calling something 'released'? I'm guessing that MonoRail's "RC" code is 10x better than the released version of most corporate software out there.
While I am not going to argue about the quality of the Castle code base, there is quite a bit more to the producing a release than just having good code. No, being scared of bugs is decidedly not the reason.
Of the top of my head, in order to get a good release out the door you need to compile a release guide, documentation, upgrade guide, installer, wizards and much more. All of this stuff is (a) boring, (b) time consuming.
Throwing code over the wall and slapping a x.0 on it is not good enough.Commercial software has an advantage here because they actually pay people to do this. OSS has a problem because very few people enjoy writing the documentation. I am certainly included. Certainly not on my free time.
For Castle, Hammett is the one that has to carry that load, most of the time. For NHibernate, it was Sergey that did most of the actual preparation for release.
I, personally, have had very little to with prepping the releases. Actually, I feel slightly bad about that.
Anyway, if you want to see releases from OSS projects, the best way to ensure that is to contribute. It can be with time, helping build the documentation, release guides and all the other necessary stuff, or it can be with monetary donation, going to the same purpose.
Comments
Exactly. OSS works because developers like solving interesting problems. Writing documentation is the opposite of an interesting problem. :-)
But what I don't get is that this is OPEN SOURCE... the code is open for anyone to contribute, but for some reason and release and documentation and package preparation is still done like a corporation.
Why can't they say, "This code is a release-worthy build. We're going to move onto the next version. We're not calling it an 'Official Release' yet because there is no/little documentation. If you want us to call it an 'Official Release', here is a Wiki page of topics that need documentation. Please get started right away!"
Why not treat the documentation as an open source project itself?
http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/ar01s04.html
Chad,
We do.
The documentation for Castle & NHibernate is check into the source files, and we accept documentation patches.
The main issue is that documentation is not a popular topic. And as such, it is not making a lot of friends.
@Ayende: But why is the release of known-good code hinged upon the documentation? documentation should not be among release criteria, that's what I'm saying. Documentation can happen along the way, during, and after the release.
Some people need it, some people don't but all who use the code need the code. Let the people who need the docs build the docs. Get corporate sponsorship to help with the docs, etc.
Right now, no corp entity wants to touch it because it's not 'released'. Once you release the code, people will adopt it, even without documentation. Some PHB might demand docs, but that's when you can suggest sponsoring the docs.
I just don't see why you can't have one without the other. It's holding back Castle, IMHO.
What is the difference in open source software of 'Release Candidate' and 'Version 1'
?
Steve,
The Castle project follows the Apache principals, which means that 1.0 meas that we are making certain guarantees to the communities.
For me it means: it's stable enough to be used in production. A release candidate to me means it is not suitable for a production environment and you are at your own risk.
I see one as saying 'we are confident this is production ready software'.
As long as Castle remains in 'RC' mode, it isn't suitable for use in a production, enterprise environment. Others might differ in this opinion, but I will say, it makes it hard to justify using the software
Ok, I posted while you posted above.
Thanks - I will go read what Apache says about those guarantees
And you wonder why Microsoft doesn't use/support/release OSS? Why corporations don't want to use OSS?
Shipping is a feature.
Comment preview