From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15438 invoked by alias); 10 Nov 2008 18:32:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 15383 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Nov 2008 18:32:16 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:31:39 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A48772A9631; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:31:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id uu-4rca0sjEd; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:31:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 598392A964E; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:31:37 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 571F1E7ACD; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:31:35 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:59:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Stan Shebs Cc: Tristan Gingold , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Darwin port (Part 0) Message-ID: <20081110183135.GG5112@adacore.com> References: <49187306.6090201@earthlink.net> <20081110175252.GE5112@adacore.com> <49187957.7030203@earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49187957.7030203@earthlink.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-11/txt/msg00183.txt.bz2 > That's exactly what the blanket assignment means. Great! So we can start reviewing this code whenever we want, then... > In fact one of the goals, going back to the overall Darwin open source > effort, was to enable non-Apple people to contribute code to public > repositories without being blocked on Apple engineers unavailable due > to internal deadlines and such. (Yes, it could also be thought of as > exploiting the community :-) , but now it's working to our advantage.) I've always seen this as a win-win situation, so I personally have never had any problem with that. Someone donates contributions in one form and someone else takes it from there to finish the work. Both parties do less than they would have otherwise. The thing about "trying to exploit the community" is that you're never guaranteed that someone will be interested enough to pick it up, nor that he'll take your contributions in the direction that you'd like. So there is still strong incentives to do everything yourself - if you have the resources ;-). -- Joel