John Plocher wrote:
> Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>> including case opinions, best
>> practices and policies, if, and only if, they are published openly in
>> the Architecture community web pages.
>
> I take this to mean that decisions reached before the above date that are
> currently not published due to resource limitations could still be
> published in the future when resources are available to do the publishing
> work, and would still be accepted. Is this what you had in mind?
Yes. (See my previous response to Jim's similar question.)
> There needs to be some discussion about how "new hardware" cases should
> be handled to allow for both "open review" as well as "avoid pre-announcing
> details of new products and thereby losing market and competitive
> advantages".
Those are most likely integrating to ON - they could have closed review to
integrate to the /usr/closed section of the Solaris ON gate, and then when
they are ready to go public, have an open review for their move to the
OpenSolaris gate. Of course, the longer they wait to go open, the more
risk they have of last minute changes being required by ARC, but that's
simply a scheduling/resource matter they'll have to consider when setting
their schedule for OpenSolaris integration.
> This implies that, should Sun wish to have projects that target
> Solaris (and /NOT/ OpenSolaris), they whould have to create & manage
> their own gate and source repository for such things, because they could
> no longer piggyback on the OS.o ON & JDS & SFW gates...
For ON, this is already in place, in /usr/closed. JDS I believe has a similar
internal-only gate for a handful of trademarked and third party encumbered bits.
Sun has also known for a long time they would have to figure out how to handle
the other side - changes that integrate into OpenSolaris that Sun may not want
in Solaris - though I don't know of any way that is handled yet.
--
-Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersmith at sun.com
Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
