[Kolab-devel] Enhancing Kolab decision making(re: Is it okay to commit the samba patch to cvs?)

[Bernhard Reiter]

Hi Richard,

On Thursday 11 September 2008 17:55, Richard Bos wrote:
>  I would
> like to look at the samba patch that is provided in issue2997:
> https://www.intevation.de/roundup/kolab/issue2997
>
> Is it okay to commit the patch to cvs?  The code must be adapted to cvs and
> some files must be added to a Makefile that I'll take care off.  If
> somebody finds the time to review the patch, I think that it is important
> to look the ldap attribute definitions and perhaps the quality of the code.

thanks for the reminder. I am still trying to find a way to deal with larger 
proposals to extend Kolab Server (and Kolab as in Kolab Solution).
I scanned the issue and the wiki page and what I am personally missing
is an overview about the implications of making the change.
This would include possible alternatives, for whom, which use cases are 
solved, why this technical approach was choosen on so on.
Maybe we do need something like a KEP (Kolab Enhancement Proposal)
going by the example of Python's PEPs: http://www.python.org/dev/peps/ .
The problem is: How do we make decisions of this importance? How do we keep 
the design philosophy?

Any CVS person could commit, (including Richard), but none would take such a 
decison alone. Others have a hard time making up their mind, because they 
would need to take 3 hours or so out, to completely read through the material 
to be able to have a opinion on it.

For Samba, this has traditionally be orthogonal to Kolab Server and was 
integrated during project, because of the difference needs. If we add 
something to Kolab Server (and the Kolab Solution) this should cater almost 
all reasonable needs and it should not add complexity for non-samba users.
Discussing this is not trivial and goes beyond the code itself.

Albert, Richard, Alain, I really appreciate your contribution towards this 
topic, it sometimes must look like I or other developers are not interested.
This is not the case, we are highly interested, still be are somehow blocked 
as well and I have tried to share some ideas why above.

All, how shall we should procede? There are some obvious ideas, but they also 
mean work in one or the other way.

Best,
Bernhard

-- 
Managing Director - Owner: www.intevation.net       (Free Software Company)
Germany Coordinator: fsfeurope.org. Coordinator: www.Kolab-Konsortium.com.
Intevation GmbH, Osnabrück, DE; Amtsgericht Osnabrück, HRB 18998
Geschäftsführer Frank Koormann, Bernhard Reiter, Dr. Jan-Oliver Wagner
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.kolab.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20080912/28e318db/attachment.sig>