FEL's commitment lineup

[Jeroen van Meeuwen]

Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>> I fail to see where counterproductivity as such is mentioned
> 
> There:
> | So - the bottom line is that it's very doubtful how the open source EDA
> | community will benefit from taking aboard VMM or OVM. This is not our
> | fight at the end of the day!? And we should not take side there. Think
> | about it - this thing will make their bait to look more juicy, they will
> | most likely put it into their fliers, they will get contributions and
> | resources from the community (packaging and maybe more) in return for
> | what? That's what I call a free beer and we all believe Fedora is not
> | about it.      
> 

Ghe, what I read here is passiveness and speculation.

>> That's a very, very different discussion then "code vs. content".
> 
> I don't think it is that different, if at all. OVM is more like content than
> code, as its purpose is not to be a program you want to run on your
> computer. And even if you consider it code, then the issue that it's
> useless without proprietary software is still exactly the same.
> 
>> Also, I do read:
>>
>> "And now the next question - is it feasible to develop an open source
>> SystemVerilog simulator in the near feature? I'm sorry to say - but it
>> seems not. Not soon. Too little resources for a too big task. I'll be
>> happy if somebody proves me wrong."
>>
>> Which to me reads like it needs time, community, and support -not
>> counterproductivity. Fedora can offer these three for free, and may
>> benefit from it. It's a nifty, kinky line of business I do not
>> understand the least bit about, but I fail to see where this is negative
>> and therefor not accepted into Fedora.
> 
> That's a very selective reading of his post, and I believe you're missing
> his point entirely!
> 

1) I didn't say it was all I read from his post; you cannot say that 
this is a very selective reading. From what you can tell, this is a very 
selective quote, at most.

2) I'm not missing his point, I do see it (but you can't tell), I just 
so happen to disagree (to some extend). It's not like I'm saying this 
content should go in, you know.

> See his introduction:
> | I'm sorry Chitlesh, about how do you feel, but I'm sure that after some
> | time you'll realize that actually "they" are probably right. I'll give you
> | a bit different look to the problem. Sorry for the long post...
> and his conclusion:
> | P.S. Chitlesh, it is not a failure. It might have been if you succeeded.
> | Sometimes before you learn how to do things you have to learn how not to
> | do them. Keep up the good work.
> 
> I don't read the paragraph you quoted as a plea for help from the Fedora
> community at all.

That's not how I read it either.

  Writing a SystemVerilog simulator needs people familiar
> with the domain and interested in volunteering for it, not your average
> packager or even programmer. The developers will have to come from the
> Electronics community. And in any case, shipping OVM is not the way to
> recruit such people at all. People interested in coding such a simulator
> can easily get OVM directly from upstream.
> 

I guess I'm done talking; I've tried to make my point, I hope you got it.

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip