Joseph Kowalski wrote: > Glenn Skinner wrote: [snip] > > ## 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?
Grumpf... IMO it depends what the '-' means - see http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ksh93-integration-discuss/2008-May/006127.html for the testing we do right now for ksh93... ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;)
