[haiku-inc] Re: Contract Proposal: Package Management

  • From: "Ingo Weinhold" <ingo_weinhold@xxxxxx>
  • To: haiku-inc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 17:26:08 +0200

Matt Madia wrote:
> On 8/8/12, Ingo Weinhold <ingo_weinhold@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > My proposal is to work on package management roughly as outlined above
> > (adjusting the plan (mainly the order of steps) as I see fit) for two
> > periods of 160 work hours each (i.e. more or less the equivalent of two
> > full-time months, though not necessarily on a full-time schedule) for 2000
> > Euros each, to be paid after the completion of each period.
> On 8/9/12, Oliver Tappe <zooey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Pretty much the same here, really: My commercial project is going to end
> > somewhere near the end of this year, so I'd be interested to add two 160
> > hour periods of my own working time on top of what Ingo has suggested.
> > Price tag and conditions would be the same (i.e. 2000 EUR per 160h, no
> > promise to deliver the 160h within a single calender month). Since Ingo
> > and I are working for the same customer, the caveats Ingo has mentioned
> > do apply for me, too: I can't say definitely at this point in time, but
> > I think I should be able to start work in January 2013, hopefully a bit
> > sooner.
> Ingo & Oliver,
> Both of your contract proposals have been accepted. Congratulations!


> However, there are two discussion points.
> Attached to this mail is a set of contractor obligations that each
> of you must agree to. Most are conventions within the Haiku project.
> The rest is other requirements that each of you should already be
> familiar with, having done previous contracts. E.g., providing
> quotable summaries to Haiku, Inc. for marketing purposes and posting
> information to the project's website, so as to give casual users a
> sense of the ongoing work. Let us know if they're agreeable.

Yep, fine by me.

> A concern was raised that at the end of these contracts, package
> management may be in a state where it is nearly finished but not
> readily available to other contributors/package maintainers. We are
> asking that if it is possible to put package management into a state
> where others can help out, that would seem to be a good focal point.

I understand the concern. However, the problem is not really that others can't 
help out. They can. The latest state of development is available in my GitHub 
repository, there's a relatively good documentation available, I detailed on 
haiku-development what the next development steps would be, and it isn't like 
Oliver and I wouldn't be around for answering further questions either. I think 
the main problem is that most of the remaining tasks are relatively large and 
require some diving into (reading the documentation how things are supposed to 
work etc.). Well, and there's enough other stuff for people to do as well.

Anyway, I agree that it would be nice to get things into a shape where it would 
be easier for other people to help out. Ideally we'd be able to merge the 
branch back into the main repository, but we can't promise that. I think it's 
relatively save to assume that we'll manage to get package building 
infrastructure and policies and probably also the repository support in place. 
That would allow others to easily build packages and help keeping repositores 
up to date.

CU, Ingo

Other related posts: