<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2654.45">
<TITLE>RE: [Openib-windows] Branding</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<BR>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> From: Fab Tillier [<A HREF="mailto:ftillier@silverstorm.com">mailto:ftillier@silverstorm.com</A>] </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 7:47 PM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> To: 'Yossi Leybovich'; openib-windows@openib.org</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Subject: RE: [Openib-windows] Branding</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > From: Yossi Leybovich [<A HREF="mailto:sleybo@mellanox.co.il">mailto:sleybo@mellanox.co.il</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 10:23 AM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > From: Fab Tillier [<A HREF="mailto:ftillier@silverstorm.com">mailto:ftillier@silverstorm.com</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 6:36 PM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > ></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > > From: Yossi Leybovich [<A HREF="mailto:sleybo@mellanox.co.il">mailto:sleybo@mellanox.co.il</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 2:12 AM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > ></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > > > From: Fab Tillier [<A HREF="mailto:ftillier@silverstorm.com">mailto:ftillier@silverstorm.com</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 12:10 AM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > > ></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > > > Folks,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > > ></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > > > I just checked in changes to brand the binaries created when </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > > > building this code as OpenIB binaries rather than any </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> particular </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > > > vendor.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > ></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > > As I recall we agreed on COPMANY_NAME environment </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> variable that by </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > > default will change to be "OpenIB". (I also sent you </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> patch that do </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > > that for wsd installer.) After we agreed that each company will </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > > need to maintain its own inf files, why not to let each company </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > > that would like supply binaries to give it own version, company </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > > name and product name.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > ></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > Customers don't want vendor provided binaries for the core </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > components - there's no way to tell if vendor X's release is </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > compatible with Vendor Y, even if they both claim that their </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > binaries are OpenIB code. The core in this case is at a </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> minimum the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > access layer, the HCA drivers, IPoIB, SRP, and WSD. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> OpenSM probably </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > belongs in there too, but that's up to Mellanox to make that call.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> ></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > I don't argue about what customers want (maybe our customers are </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > different from yours) but simply suggest a way to satisfy </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> all of us. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > If the default environment variables will be "OpenIB alliance" etc. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > then on clean OpenIB build you got the same result as you want ,and </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > still give the option to Mellanox (and other companies that want to </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > create binaries for them self and their customers) to have </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> their own </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > signature of product version etc. About portability that issue that </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > each vendor that supply its binaries need to solve.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> By customers I meant the OpenIB user community - which has </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> been very clear that they do not want vendor specific stacks </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> for the core. We don't want vendor stacks, and enabling that </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> in the code goes against the goals of OpenIB. However, you </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> can make modifications internally to your code repository to </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> change the branding however you see fit.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Just because some binaries have the OpenIB branding and </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> versioning information doesn't prevent anyone from packaging </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> them up under a different release version.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Anyhow, let me look into this a bit more, but honestly I </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> think there are more important things to do. My goal with </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> this change was to enable the creation of standard and </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> official OpenIB binary releases against the OpenIB SVN </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> repository, and as such the changes enable that. Just to be </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> extra clear on this, any binaries that aren't branded as </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> OpenIB builds and publicly available are not true OpenIB </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> binaries, but rather derivatives of the OpenIB Windows project.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > I am going to build binaries and post them on the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> windows.openib.org </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > web server for anyone to use, with the expectation that </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> all vendors </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > will package these up in their releases. See the email I </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> sent last </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > week after the OpenIB board meeting when the board agreed </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> this was a </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > good idea.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> ></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > That really good idea and you right the signature should be OpenIB </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > alliance I still did not figure who/how you control the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> version number </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > (like when we change the major release number ?)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Right now since the SVN trunk is under "gen1", the major </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> version number is 1. The minor number is zero just because we </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> have to start somewhere. We can define a process by which </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> major and minor version numbers are changed, but this can </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> wait until we need it.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>One more little thing don't you think it better to put the SVN version var in last number (VER_FILEREV(</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> > > Since the core binaries will have the SVN repository version </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > information, it will be easy for customers to identify any </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > interoperability issues they might encounter.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > ></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > Lastly, if you do want a vendor branded solution, you can </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> modify the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > versioning file in your repository - presumably you also </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> have other </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > changes you haven't put back into the SVN repository, so you're </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > already managing two trees that are out of sync. If the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> trees are </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > in sync, what are you gaining by applying your own version </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > information aside from confusing the customer?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > That exactly what I want to avoid , I want to be identical to the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > OpenIB as much as possible ( including ics_ver.h file)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> BTW, this changed to oib_ver.h</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > The only changes from OpenIB that I want in my release </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> should be from </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > real reasons (like bugs that OpenIB did not patch yet)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Ok. I want us all to be very careful that we don't apply a </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> patch and create a vendor release and then stop putting </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> pressure to apply that patch (or its</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> equivalent) to the trunk. This applies to both patches and </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> features added to the core.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>That the state that we in Mellanox standing now. We need the IPoIB patch and the CR MAP patch </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>We need them for our release and they still did not come in to the OpenIB.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > > > This affected any component that used to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > > > include ics_ver.h, which has been renamed oib_ver.h </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> and picks up </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > > > the SVN revision through the VER_OPENIB environment variable </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > > > (which must be set or build will fail).</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > ></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > > Why not to let companies to decide on their version calling </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > > mechanism and keep default to the OpenIB. I would </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> prefer to see 4 </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > > numbers with environment variables, 3 numbers are the release </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > > number (i.e. 1.2.0 ) and the last one is the SVN number</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > ></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > You can version your private binaries however you like - there's </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > nothing preventing you from having your own version numbers, </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > company, and product names in your private repository. However, </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > they will not be official OpenIB binaries if you do so.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> ></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > I agree , but I suggest that versions will be different, still the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > sources will be identical in all files that we did not touch.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> If you do this, please make sure you clearly state what </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> version of the OpenIB binaries your release is compatible with.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>We will do that .</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Thanks,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> - Fab</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>