Roland Mainz wrote: >> Joseph Kowalski wrote: >> >> >From David Korn, as referenced by Garrett, forwarded by Roland. >> >> >>> I expect that the new features are subject to change >>> based on feedback (bugs and ideas). Once there has >>> been enough feedback that I feel comfortable I remove the - >>> suffix. >>> >>> >> That sounds like a resounding "yes" - new features can be altered >> in the "t-" to "t" transition. >> >> (BTW: I wouldn't expect it to be any other way. We make the >> same allowance for Beta releases. We just shouldn't be placing >> components with Beta [non-]guarantees in potentially FCS >> products.) >> > > Note that this is a general statement. To check "yes" for _this_ case > covering ksh93 version "t-", "t" and "t+" two things must be "true": > 1. We need a good idea for adding new stuff (we don't have such a thing > right now, nearly all effort mainly goes into the new type system, > bugfixing and hunting down global variables as preparation for thread > support etc. and the contentious thing - the "enum" builtin - was the > _first_ one since 15 years) > 2. Somehow magically a large chunk of "free time" needs to fall out of > the heaven, crawl out of hell or is somehow else put into existance > (Sauron's ring is unfortunately lost... ;-( ) > > Since neither [1] or [2] are true we can mark the "no" checkbox for this > time and move along, right ? > Nope, not a chance. As I said, this is truly a C-team issue.
I'm just going to forward this mail (which has all the relative points, including your rationalization) to the C-team (J. Beck, et.al.). They can decide what to do with it. That said, I think we *are* done with this as a PSARC issue. - jek3 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-arc/attachments/20080529/4264d2cf/attachment.html>
