>But do you consider ksh93 to be a "sound architectural decision"? It was >integrating a piece of open source software from my view, and replacing a >component that was already in place.
Did you actually follow the discussion? The ARC discussion of ksh93 belied the fact that it was a "simple Open Source" integration. It was not and many things weren't so obvious as they seemed on the surface (just install /usr/bin/ksh93 which would have been a fast track). No, the fact of the matter was that it was much more complicated, specifically because of all of ksh93's builtins which don't work quite the same way as their Solaris counterparts all of the time. >Even so, a community member can't just say I'm going to putback ksh93 >without getting the proper approval and complying with the formal process >put in place. The community member must have a sponsor to do so, and in >fact, the community has little bearing on what is accepted/approved by any >of the process that is entirely inside the SWAN. At this time; but the ARC and development process is DEFINED as part of the OpenSolaris process; whether it has a formal role in the constitution is neither here not there. The development simply is as it is and as it was agreed upon; it closely mimics Sun's model and has, by necessity, a large chunk of the iceberg hidden inside Sun. That is a bug but it is slowly going to be improved. >The bottom line is that the community can't do $#!T as the system is >today, without having someone to wipe their @$$ for them. And your point is? This is a known problem which can not be addressed quickly; for one we're hampered with a model which assumes a flat, open, network and secondly in order to get up into the developer hierarchy you need experience and apart from ex-Sun employees there are few, if any, outsiders with the needed credentials. But that is all to be expected; we can argue that the pace is wrong but that doesn't fix the problem. >How much influence did the CAB have on OpenSolaris? How much did the CAB >dictate on what was putback? How much power does the OGB have today? What >do they actually approve or not approve in what is putback? Nothing, I hope. That isn't part of their role. >BFD, everytrhing looks good on paper. The bottom line is that the >community can't even putback unless they have someone help them. Nobody, >not even a core contributer can putback unless they're on SWAN, and can >get the approval for their putback. Technically, you only need to get >approval from the gate keeper and tech lead, but there's a lot of eyeballs >watching the process so there's many more players to get by for any >putback to happen. And your point is? Again, this is a known technical shortcoming which is being fixed. >Rich Lowe had an interesting thought on trying to leverage the IHV gate to >handle this type of situation where a driver that might not be open source >could be in the IHV gate, and an open driver in the OpenSolaris gate, >however this is all speculation as I'm not even clear if the megasas is >open source or not, and I don't think anyone else on this thread so far >knows either (at least hasn't mentioned it if they do;-). There clearly needs to be a mechanism for Sun where it can deviate from OpenSolaris for its products (be it in some Solaris update or what not) But that is largely irrelevant for the community apart from the minor detail that conflicts between the Solaris binary releases will need to be reflected in some source repository somewhere inside Sun. And possibly with a makefile setting for a consolidation which says "build bits for Sun's official release" vs "build all bits". Casper _______________________________________________ driver-discuss mailing list driver-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/driver-discuss
