Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>
>> Are you using (populating) anything in /usr/shell as part of this case?
>>
>> If not, you might consider running that as a separate fast track.
>>
>
> Without that portion, this case is pretty much an automatic-approval case
> to upgrade to the latest upstream, but since the project team wanted to do
> both at once, I saw no harm in having a combined fast track. Is there a
> reason to split now? Is the ARC going to want to derail or deny that
> portion, but not the rest?
>
>
I certainly hadn't planned to derail or anything like that. And I agree
that the case is nearly automatic-approval. (Although as there are some
changes including new syntax and new reserved words in the shell
language, I think it still fails the automatic approval test, but only
just.)
I would still prefer that the cases were separated -- in fact, as there
are no consumers for the /usr/lib/shell (nothing being put there as part
of *this* case), I'd actually recommend holding off on that until there
is at least one consumer. However, I don't feel strongly enough on it
to take any assertive action on my own.
The issue of /usr/share vs. /usr/lib doesn't seem fully resolved to me
yet, either. (I see reasonable arguments for either case.)
Put another way, I think without /usr/lib/shell, the case can probably
be approved at today's meeting. With /usr/lib/shell, at a minimum we
need to allow for more discussion.
-- Garrett
