Live data from Hacker News

Why do you not make the code available under a 'source code repository'?

live555.com

61–70 of 99 posts

Re: Why do you not make the code available under a 'source code repository'?

#61

Subclassing for versioning, eh? I remember talking to a friend in the early 90s who was doing that at the company he worked at. I was reading about SCCS at the time, and wanted to convince my management to use that, but couldn't get them away from the "directory tree per release version" method. My next job in the mid 90s used RCS, and I've never worked at a job since that didn't use some kind of version control / ar…

I see no indication that the devs aren't using version control. All we know from that statement is that they are not making it available to the public.

Re: Why do you not make the code available under a 'source code repository'?

#62
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The LGPL requires that end users are able to replace LGPL libraries with new builds. The App Store creates a bit of an issue, but it's possible to update app libraries if your phone is jailbroken. You might also be able to modify and re-sign, but I'm not sure. The LGPL doesn't require the developer to use a new version or provide updates at anyone's request.

The iOS App Store disallows dynamic libraries. Libraries are statically linked into the final executable, so they're not easy to replace.

In that case, the LGPL requires you distribute source or relinkable object files.

I know a lot of folks don't (because i do M&A due diligence), but that's a very clear license violation if you don't.

(also note that IOS 8+ allows dynamic linking, but replacement may still be an issue).

Re: Why do you not make the code available under a 'source code repository'?

#63
post #43

A source code repository lets me see what bugs you have fixed, and lets me do things like "git bisect" to discover the identity of the commit where you broke something six months ago that wasn't discovered because it's not covered by tests. Helping others find your bugs helps you. Anyone who is serious about any open source project today has a repository. Your bogus rationalizations sound like you haven't held a soft…

Git bisect is only available for git and (at least) subversion has no comparable command, so unless you are willing to force everybody to use git (and that may not be bad) you aren't guaranteed to get anything useful out of it. Heck git allows you to edit the history pretty widely, right (I have only limited experience with git myself)? So in this case he could maintain a separate upstream repository which only conta…

Git, Mercurial, Darcs, Monotone, and Baazar all have a built-in bisect and for svn there are well used external scripts (like svn-bisect).

Re: Why do you not make the code available under a 'source code repository'?

#64
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From #mercurial in Freenode where I found this, "I hope he has some [VCS] internally. He still releases archives with the odd random file or line of testing code in though."

If you ever see someone release file.c.bak, it's just sad.

To be fair, seeing .bak or .config or private key files, etc. accidentally pushed to github is not exactly uncommon.

Re: Why do you not make the code available under a 'source code repository'?

#65

A source code repository lets me see what bugs you have fixed, and lets me do things like "git bisect" to discover the identity of the commit where you broke something six months ago that wasn't discovered because it's not covered by tests. Helping others find your bugs helps you. Anyone who is serious about any open source project today has a repository. Your bogus rationalizations sound like you haven't held a soft…

I remember the infrequent releases and not-very-collaborative development from the GNU Project once upon a time -- you get a new release with an announcement on an announce list and availability on the FTP site, a couple of times a year or sometimes less often. And that's about it, because it's the maintainer's responsibility to maintain the code. (Of course, you can contribute patches which the maintainer can accept or reject, and you can fork the program if you want. And some of the projects did have public discussion lists, but not all of them, and not at first.)

This is still the way that NetHack development works. :-)

It feels like something of an anachronism now, but it highlights the existence of a distinction between free and open source code (you can exercise certain freedoms with respect to any release) and collaborative development (you can potentially help create the release without having a formal relationship with the developers). I know Google has also been criticized around AOSP for being less transparent and collaborative than the present-day norm. Maybe they should defend themselves by comparing themselves to the NetHack Dev Team!

Re: Why do you not make the code available under a 'source code repository'?

#66
post #57
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno. Statements like in the link make me question if someone is actually competent.

someone's grasp of best practices in vcs is in no way an indicator of their programming or cs abilities

But it could still be an indicator of competence.

Re: Why do you not make the code available under a 'source code repository'?

#67
post #27

"As the software is open source, however, hobbyists are also free to use it, but to post to this mailing list, they are expected to demonstrate at least a minimal level of 'cluefulness' by using an email address with their own domain name - not just a generic "@gmail", "@yahoo", etc.-type email address." Makes sense.

Who still bothers to do that?

Re: Why do you not make the code available under a 'source code repository'?

#68
post #41

My experience is that for a software development project of just a few people, for a code repository fairly obvious use of the hierarchical file system on a shared server is just fine.

I certainly thought that for a long time. Then I learned how to use version control.

Re: Why do you not make the code available under a 'source code repository'?

#69
post #3

I don't see an issue with this (am I supposed to? Do we demand everyone use git or similar now?). They can give you the source however they want. On another topic, did anyone see the license section? --- If you distribute a product (whether software or hardware; whether free or for pay) that uses the LIVE555 library code, then you must - when requested by either a customer, or Live Networks, Inc. - upgrade it as soon…

Ross may have tacked this on after this exchange with Foscam regarding an IP camera line streaming RTSP with an ancient (and buggy) live555 release:

http://foscam.us/forum/a-reported-problem-with-your-fi9821w-...

Re: Why do you not make the code available under a 'source code repository'?

#70
post #66
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

someone's grasp of best practices in vcs is in no way an indicator of their programming or cs abilities

But it could still be an indicator of competence.

To reason about software, it's a useful cognitive tool to be able to simplify gigantic systems down to interfaces and black boxes.

Carrying that notion of isolating components too far, such that you don't consider human cooperation as part of the system? It happens often, but we also often distinguish this with statements about EQ versus IQ rather than summing it all up as competence.

(Yes, you used the word indicator. I'm speaking to the community more than you specifically.)

Post reply on HN