Roland Mainz wrote:
>
> Erm... two items:
> 1. B72 integrated ksh93 version "s-" (which was an "alpha" version, too)
> - and for the first attempt it was AFAIK quite good. And the upcoming
> ksh93t- will be "better" since we learned from our mistakes.
> 2. Looking at the number of bugs open in bugster and other problems I
> think we can't wait much longer. ksh93t+ will likely not be available
> before mid-2009. We're simply running out of time - that's why we
> invested the whole last month with testing ksh93t- and making sure it is
> fully functional and bug-free.
>
It sounds like you've done some good work mitigating the risks.
I do have two questions though.
1) What criteria does the upstream source use before deciding a version
can drop the "-"? And, perhaps more importantly, why is the testing
you've been doing not sufficient to warrant that?
2) What kinds of changes other than bug fixes can we expect between the
"-" release, and the version without the "-"? Are there any
compatibility assumptions that can be made?
Put another way, I'm more concerned about incompatible changes impacting
scripts, than I am about quality (given that it seems like you've done a
lot to ensure that quality concerns are addressed.)
-- Garrett
