Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 07:39:03 -1000
From: Joseph Kowalski <jek3 at sun.com>
Subject: Re: 2008/344 [ksh93 Integration Update 1 Amendments 1]
Glenn Skinner wrote:
> Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 16:19:44 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Alan Coopersmith <Alan.Coopersmith at sun.com>
> Subject: ksh93 Integration Update 1 Amendments 1 [PSARC/2008/344
> FastTrack timeout 06/03/2008]
>
> ...
> ## Part 1.1: Update of ksh93
> The 1.1 portion of this project is the update of ksh93 from
> ast-ksh.2007-12-15 to ast-ksh-2008-05-22 which marks the update
> from ksh93 version 's+' to version 't-' (AST/ksh93 uses the
> (latin) alphabet for its version number, e.g. version 'a',
> version 'b' etc. ; the '+'/'-' means the stabilty status, e.g.
> '-' means its "alpha", no suffix means its "stable" (e.g. ready
> for production usage) and '+' means its a bugfixed stable version
> etc.).
>
> Are we to infer from this nomenclature description that ksh's
> stability level is decreasing as part of this case?
I read it as "we don't integrate '-' versions into Solaris". Did
I guess right?
That's my underlying concern. Lower quality and higher probability of
exposed bugs would seem to imply higher risk that we can't meet the
guarantees implied by the (ARC taxonomy) stability level we've
assigned to ksh93.
If the project team wishes to retain the existing stability
classification, that's their prerogative; they'll have chosen to
assume the risk of violating the stability classification's guarantees
(and presumably will have a strategy for mitigating the risk).
But if the team wishes to reduce the stability level, that's an
architectural issue that we'll need to assess.
(And from an overall Solaris perspective, that's quite likely the
right course to take. Accepting minor breakage due to things like
introducing new keywords in return for more agility in keeping up with
the Joneses is a reasonable trade-off.)
Anyhow, I think we should be explicit about the choices being made
here.
-- Glenn
