On 31/10/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >On 10/31/07, Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On 31/10/2007, Bruno Jargot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > I am asking you again to back this change out. You're affecting > >> > stability, quality and backwards-compatibility of Opensolaris which > >> > are the great strengths of Opensolaris without even consulting the > >> > community. I think this is not the way how Open Source works. > >> > >> How is affecting OpenSolaris? > > > >Dave is bypassing the community, the ARC and all other conventions in > >Open Source. The convention is to discuss such fundamental changes in > >the community and wait until a consensus is reached. We did not had a > >discussion and there is no consensus. > > Clearly the proper development procedures weren't followed; if a project > in opensolaris feels that it can flaunt the rules like this it should > not be part of a distribution labeled "... OpenSolaris ..."; specifically > not a canonical distribution, if there is one.
I don't see how. Just because a distribution makes some bits downloadable doesn't mean that they have to go through ARC as far as I know. Naming issues aside; I don't see the problem here. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "We don't have enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all junction types--in the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics are not in our favor..." --Larry Wall _______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
