[CentOS-devel] possibility of an extra-hardware-support SIG

Thu Sep 6 13:31:51 UTC 2007
Phil Schaffner <Philip.R.Schaffner at NASA.gov>

On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 12:06 +0000, gjgowey at tmo.blackberry.net wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 12:44 +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> > 
> > there is a wiki at http://wiki.centos.org/ - so any project or work that we are 
> > doing will get mention there and on the website. I dont understand how mailing 
> > lits on sf.net would be different from mailing lists here. Btw, these are not 
> > splinter projects - this is work we hope to do, to be directly usable on the 
> > centos distro. I would consider it more of ValueAdd rather than a splinter. IMHO 
> > keeping such things inhouse and under one roof also means lesser work for people 
> > who are involved with multiple issues like this. Which is something we all are 
> > really.
> > 
> It's basically aimed at letting individual developers start projects
> that they feel would benefit centos do so basically on their own terms
> and let those projects be run using sourceforge resources until
> they're sufficiently mature enough to be integrated into the mainsteam
> centos development path.  The provision of allowing core centos
> members joint full control over these independent projects is so that
> the incubation period can be as long as need be without risking the
> project becoming orphaned.

Please avoid top-posting.  If I am correctly interpreting the context of
your reply, it is reconstructed above.

This effort does not seem appropriate for SF, although it could involve
packaging hardware drivers available there for CentOS.  SF hardware
projects seem to be targeted at supporting particular hardware, not
providing drivers for a variety of hardware for a particular OS (but, I
admittedly have not studied the 100,000 SF projects, nor even the 700+
in the hardware drivers category).  I think, as Karanbir apparently
does, that trying to host it there would tend to splinter the
CentOS-centric effort.

-- to-borrow-a-sig --

A:  Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q:  Why is top-posting a bad thing?