Martijn Dashorst wrote: >> ==== Inexperience with Open Source: ==== >> Empire-db has been Open Source from its start in 2001, but it has only >> been publicly available since January 2008. > >This is odd to say the least, and from the empire-db.org [1] website I >find this quote: > >"In summer 2007 ESTEAM Software decided that the solution was >now mature enough to be released as an Open Source project under >the name Empire-db." > >So it was actually open source since Jan 2008? It doesn't matter much, but I do >find it odd :) >
What we mean is that from the start in 2001 we provided the source code to anyone interested and we would also accept advice and improvements from anyone. However there was little documentation and no sample code available so we felt that it would be hard to get other developers interested. In Summer 2007 we decided that it was now time to go public, create a website and a logo, write some good sample applications and improve javadoc to make it appealing to a bigger audience. This was also when we decided to go for the name Empire-db. Before it was a 'component with no name'. It took us till January 2008 to get everything together that you can now see under www.empire-db.org. Hope this makes sense to you now. >> All committers have long >> experience in using Open Source projects, but none has served as a >> committer on other Apache projects. We do, however, not expect any >> difficulty in adapting the Apace development process and follow the >> meritocracy rules. > >This is something the Incubator exists for. > >> ==== Homogenous developers: ==== >> All core developers have initially worked for the same employer, with >> one now working for a different employer at a different location. It is >> one of our primary goals to become a more heterogeneous community. > >This does make the barrier to entry a bit high for non-involved folks. There is >little evidence of open development available for empire-db. Only the >sf.net forum >is public and consists of just one active thread in the last 6 months. > >Also the development of an open source project should happen out in >the open. The CVS statistics of sourceforge.net [2] show little to no >activity regarding this project: > >Date (UTC) Anon Read Transactions Devel Read Transactions Write >Transactions >Jun 2008 * 1 28 7 >May 2008 0 0 0 >Apr 2008 0 0 0 >Mar 2008 4 0 0 >Feb 2008 0 8 7 >Jan 2008 0 0 0 >Total 5 36 14 > >What is the current development style of the committers? Is there no >activity in CVS because the project is "done"? Or because development >occurs off-line? We have only moved to source-forge in January 2008 with release 2.0.0. For the current community's needs Empire-db is already quite mature hence there has not been a lot of demand for new features or bug-fixes recently. This may change with a larger commuitiy which is what we're looking for. We are aware of the fact that the lack of size and diversity of our community is our biggest handicap. However we hope that we are able to increase the community by giving good reasons why Empire-db is a good choice for DBMS independent, high-performance, full-control database access. Especially our concepts for metadata mangement and compile-time safety is something we think people really should consider. So to answer your question: The project is NOT"done" it's just awaiting new challenges and new participants. > >Martijn Dashorst > >[1] http://www.empire-db.org/empiredb/faq.htm#question1 ><http://www.empire-db.org/empiredb/faq.htm#question1> >[2] >http://sourceforge.net/project/stats/detail.php?group_id=214540&ugn=empire-db&type=cvs&mode=12months > ><http://sourceforge.net/project/stats/detail.php?group_id=214540&ugn=empire-db&type=cvs&mode=12months> >
