Casper.Dik at sun.com wrote:
> >So let us conclude:
> >
> >- There have been no compelling arguments from the people who
> > filed the ARC case, proving that there is is no better way
> > to implement this feature.
>
> There is no need to provide such an argument.
So the ARC commitee will approve anything without discussion?
This looks extremely bad.
> >- Sun no longer cares about long term interface stabiliy.
>
> Joerg, please don't make sweeping generlizations like that. As Joe
> explained, in this particular case there is no departure from an
> existing interface.
I did explain why this is true. If you like to respond, please give arguments.
> >- Sun ignores the OpenSolaris community.
>
> No, it does not. PSARC listened to the arguments of both sides
> but did not feel your arguments were compelling enough.
I did not yet see any argument from a Sun person that verified that this person
did understand the problem. Let us have a duscussion _after_ I see that there
is a will to understand the problem and to look at star to understand the star
philisophy. This did not happen yet!
> >- Some people inside Sun foil a correct ARC review for a bigger
> > and complex change and bypass the process by plitting the big
> > change into zillion small changes that are easily to approve.
>
> Please Joerg, stop trying to attribute alterior motives to people making
> changes. A small command line change does not warrant a big ARC case
> nor is it a hard and fast requirement that all related changes should
> be in one AC case; often they are not as ARC cases are ammended.
I am not the only person who is annoyed by this way of acting.
Please do not try to hide serious problems.
> >- The ARC commitee needs to be changed or OpenSolaris will die!
> > If there is not a single non-Sun person from the OpenSolaris
> > community that is allowed to at least veto decisions, the ARC
> > decicions do not have the basis that is needed for OpenSolaris.
>
> There is NO-ONE who is allowed to VETO decisions; that would not
> give a workable situation.
So anyone is able to introduce incompatibility in OpenSolaris?
Then something needs to be changed.
> >I hope that the man pages for tar(1), cpio(1) and pax(1) will get a hint that
> >the option -/ may in future be replaced by an option with different name
> >without notice.
>
> That is extremely unlikely to happen. If star(1) is integrated as tar/cpio/pax
> then it will need to implement the compatibility option "/" as it is
> implemented now. "star" being option incompatible with tar anyway is
> free to implement the "/" option whichever way it pleases.
OK, if star is really free to do so, Sun would need to mention that there is no
grant for stability with the currently intended meaning for -/ in
/usr/bin/{tar!cpio!pax}
J?rg
--
EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
