Re: [Gnu-arch-users] planning 2.0? (was re: Google...)

[Aldrik KLEBER]

Le Jeudi 20 Avril 2006 21:52, Thomas Lord a écrit :
> * The Questions
>   Q1. Who is our target market?
>   Q2. What are their needs?
>   Q3. What is our business model? [2]
>
> * Personal Partial Answer: Who is our target market?
>
>   I think it should include:
>     ~ GNU/Linux distribution projects (both commercial and public)
>     ~ small, especially new free software projects
>     ~ teams of people using office applications rather than programming
> per se
>     ~ public-knowledge-repository projects such as Wikipedia


        ~ Independant workers, who have their own business, without internal 
structure, or if one very small ( because they can't work on a centralize 
model for managing development)


>      ~ provides ACID properties to multiple users of a single database
>         node

        Excuse me for my ignorance but .... What do you call ACID properties ?


>   Of course, those are necessary, not sufficient conditions for a program
>   to be called Arch.

        For the moment Arch with tla is limited to POSIX environment, should we 
considered that it is a ARCH requirement, or on only a caracteristic of the 
first implementation of ARCH ? Should we imagine that ARCH can be open to non 
POSIX SYSTEM (Mainframe, etc ...) ?

        About the problem described by James, can we imagine to be able to 
control 
the propagation of history between branches ? (Deleting history for example 
after a fork, because we don't want to merge after from the original branch, 
alpha branch -> beta branch -> rc branche -> final branch  we don't need to 
propagate history because we only need to continu history, not to merge 
later)

>
>
> Notes:
> [1] "I would like to explore the hypothesis that people
>        might be interested in cooperating to design and build
>       Arch 2.0 ."
>
>      For this hypothesis, I am not assuming that I am in any
>      way "in charge" of Arch 2.0.   I can try to serve the effort
>      by trying to lead, but that is not the same thing as being in
>      charge.    It isn't initially obvious that *anybody* needs to
>      be in charge.
>
We are only exchanging idea, free to every one to do what he wants after.



Aldrik