Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

live555.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 99 posts

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

#21

Post by kazinator »

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 software job working with other developers in twenty-five years, if ever. Hey, putting tarballs on the sunsite.unc.edu FTP site worked in 1990---why change a process that works?

Exposing a version history doesn't imply that you're supporting old baselines. What is or is not supported is declared separately from version control.

You cannot stop people from merging their local changes to your upstream by not having a repository. Linux didn't have a repository for years, yet people maintained and shared complex patches outside of the official tree anyway. (And with tools like Quilt, refined that to an art form.) People will take your snapshots, import them on into an upstream branch and do their own ad-hoc version control on your code.

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

#23

Post by cwyers »

wmil wrote: post #10
howeyc wrote: 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…

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.

Well, what they say:

> 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 as possible to use the latest version of the LIVE555 library code (or else provide a way for your customers to perform this upgrade themselves).

That's a very strained reading of the LGPL, but the way the LGPL is written, they must provide a way for customers to updgrade the LIVE555 code used to whatever version they want to, including the latest version. It doesn't have to WORK, necessarily, but the ability to replace LGPL code in a work with one's own code is part of the license.

TL;DR: I think they're wrong but not so far wrong as to be crazy, and what they insist on happening is a consequence of following the terms of the LGPL (customers being able to upgrade to the latest version).

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

#24

Post by erikb »

Of course there are still people who don't understand what repositories are and how they work. That's really a pity with such a big, well known project, because then others have to do that work for them. (And this kind of project usually has many repos because people don't talk to each other)

Example: https://github.com/hackeron/live555

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

#25

Post by jordigh »

kazinator wrote: post #21

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…

> Your bogus rationalizations sound like you haven't held a software job working with other developers in twenty-five years, if ever.

Video codec people are kind of weird as developers. Consider ffmpeg and libav. They're certainly competent, just weird.

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

#26

Post by erikb »

bakabaka9 wrote: post #20
brixon wrote: post #2

1. It sounds like they do not want outside contributors. 2. They might not use one internally or using something old that does not expose to the internet well.

I actually managed to contribute to it once, via the mailing list. This doesn't really invalidate (1), but maybe they just don't want GitHub-style forks ("modifying the supplied code 'in place' is something that we discourage").

It's unavoidable with open source. Take any project with daily tarballs and mailing list diffs and you can probably even code a solution that will transform it to a git repo. Actually a git repo is not that different from a tarball webshare with a shell client for diffs etc.

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

#27

Post by hayd »

"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.

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

#28

Post by zeeed »

howeyc wrote: 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…

> I don't see an issue with this (am I supposed to? Do we demand everyone use git or similar now?).

That depends on your job. If you are a software developer, -engineer or similar, I would argue that you should. There are good arguments for version control.

- divide & conquer for bugfinding - reconstruction of history - being able to revert back to an older version if/while operations require it - it allows tracking of changes over time - it is the best way of understanding what changed since the last version (for people actually using the library) - finding complex faults - branching and merging (but the author is opposed to this)

So, well, what concerns live555, IMHO it's a huge red flag for people considering to actually use the library. When it comes to "not seeing an issue with not using source control", I believe that one can state without a doubt that it is a good and proven practice.

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

#29

Post by nickpsecurity »

faceplanter wrote: post #16
learnstats2 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do you "undo" to yesterday when you change your mind about something??? One might argue that developer time is valuable enough to ensure that it's spent on things that won't be "undone".

That's totally unrealistic. Often it's not the dev. that changes his mind, but the client. And since they have the $$$ you will be "undoing" previous work.

Exactly. Any good development process and software architecture must be responsive to change without enduring huge problems trying.

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

#30

Post by efaref »

The quality of their code looks pretty terrible too. For starters, just look at their genMakefiles script (something of a WTF itself - y u no configure?):

https://github.com/hackeron/live555/blob/master/genMakefiles

It should be more like:

    os=$1
    modules="liveMedia groupsock ..."
    
    for module in $modules
    do
      /bin/rm -f $module/Makefile
      cat $module/Makefile.head config.$os $module/Makefile.tail > $module/Makefile
      chmod a-w $module/Makefile
    done
Post reply on HN