[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696





--- Comment #44 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi <a.badger at gmail.com>  2009-07-16 10:27:03 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #43)
> Toshio, Mamoru, as a startup company with finite resources we cannot afford to
> spend lots of resources on getting our changes accepted into Boost. If this
> means that Phusion Passenger will not be packaged by Fedora, then so be it; our
> users will find us and will use our software regardless.
> 
> Of course, if Red Hat can provide man power to get the changes accepted into
> Boost for us, or if Red Hat can hire us to get it done, then it would be a
> different story.  

You're so close to understanding the power of open source software, you just
need to take a few more steps! :-)  Here's how I would have phrased it as an
open source developer trying to leverage his community:

"""
I can see how bundling libraries can be a problem for distributions.  We just
went through similar issues with Debian as well.  Unfortunately, that's not the
market that we're actively pursuing at the moment so we're spending our time
working on other areas of the code rather than trying to get our changes
integrated into boost.  If you want to get those changes integrated into boost,
the current code is here: URL_TO_GIT_REPO.  The current code is based on boost
BOOST_VERSION.  The diff between the two will show you that we're basically
doing: OVERVIEW_OF_CHANGES.  This is essential because
WHY_IS_THIS_AN_ESSENTIAL_BUGFIX,_FEATURE,_ETC.  This has to touch
MANY_FILES/FEW_FILES/INVASIVE_CHANGE/UNOBTRUSIVE_CHANGE.  The changes
OTHER_NOTES_THAT_WILL_HELP_US_UNDERSTAND_THE_CODE_WELL_ENOUGH_TO_EXPLAIN_IT_TO_BOOST_UPSTREAM.

We've tried to get this into upstream boost before.  Here's a link to the
mailing list discussion of that where boost upstream outlines the issues they
had with our present code: URL_TO_PREVIOUS_DISCUSSION_WITH_BOOST.

If you can get this into boost's upstream we'd be happy to
TAKE_PATCHES/MAKE_OUR_OWN_CHANGES to phusion passenger to
UNBUNDLE/ONLY_BUNDLE_IF_SYSTEM_BOOST_IS_UNAVAILABLE boost.

Hope that helps!
"""

In open source, people help write code because they have an itch to scratch. 
Red Hat doesn't ship phusion passenger so you need to address the people who
actually have an itch instead.  Jeroen and a number of people CC'd to this bug
fit that bill as they want to see phusion passenger shipped on Fedora and
understand that bundling libraries is a drawback for their deployments.  Since
they didn't write the modifications to boost, be sure to give them the tools
and knowledge they need to successfully discuss the changes with boost upstream
so that there's a chance of getting the changes integrated.  Whether phusion
passenger gets into Fedora will depend on whether you get one of them to pick
up the task and get the changes merged upstream.

Also remember that getting changes integrated upstream is often like a
negotiating session. Since you're trying to get someone else to do your
negotiating for you, be sure they understand what your requirements are before
sending them off to work.  Maybe boost will give you the feature you want but
it can't use the API you wrote.  Maybe the feature is unacceptable but boost
will make changes so you can write the feature into your application layer
instead.  It's important for the person who takes up this task to know what
things are negotiable and which are not.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.