| |||||||||||||
OpenOffice in a nut-shell ...OpenOffice in a nut-shell ...Posted Jan 18, 2010 19:43 UTC (Mon) by AlexHudson (subscriber, #41828)In reply to: OpenOffice in a nut-shell ... by mmeeks Parent article: LCA: How to destroy your community
As far as Sun's innovation goes, I feel it is somewhat overshadowed by the rapid progress made by others.
SugarCRM managed to achieve #1, #4, #5, #7 and #9 simultaneously by requiring The Outsiders to submit their patches via a small web form. Somewhat surprisingly, this form once went broken for months without anyone actually noticing - it's unclear to me if any code submitted that way ever made it into the codebase either.
(Log in to post comments)
OpenOffice in a nut-shell ... Posted Jan 18, 2010 22:07 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
That's... truly remarkable. Why has no other project emulated this
stunning decision, I wonder?
(in a past job, I worked on a proprietary system that had a homebrewed
OpenOffice in a nut-shell ... Posted Jan 19, 2010 17:21 UTC (Tue) by AlexHudson (subscriber, #41828) [Link] Hehe, look : still it lives! I don't know if it has changed at all, but the process appears to be improved further from my original understanding. You first create a bug entry covering the issue (sane, aside from login required), then you submit the web form to alert them to the submission (er...?) and they have a lovely set of guidelines to follow (gems like "The proposed change must support all baseline-certified versions of PHP, and must be able to support all databases, etc."). Beat them hoops. Also, by my reading, they want the description of the improvement in the bug tracker, but the actual code submission via the web - what?
OpenOffice in a nut-shell ... Posted Jan 19, 2010 21:15 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Stunning. Nothing screams 'we don't expect contributions, go away' like
constraints like that. The 'no 3rd-party software' rule alone is an excellent way of forcing wheel-reinvention for no good reason whatever.
|
|||||||||||||