[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. >
And what rules would those be? The bits that will be posted are the rough equivalent of a project's early, pre-ARC BFU archives in terms of our commitment to what they represent. The project leads involved agreed that we should do this for what we're putting out as our first drop, in spite of the representations by some of the bystanders here. If you're going to base your argument on the choice of name for the bits, then that's an issue for Sun's marketing and management powers, not me. Dave _______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
