On Fri, July 24, 2009 01:49, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > I have one more thing to say on this case, which is that I apologize. > > I've been thinking about the meeting this week (and a message from > another participant triggered this consideration), and the conversations > that have taken place here, and I have realized that I may have failed > in my duty as PSARC chair to separate my personal opinion on the case's > completeness/readiness, from the obligatory objective evaluation of > whether or not the case had converged. (I.e. in my mind the issues > raised had been satisfied, but looking back I'm not sure I gave > opportunity for other participants to reach the same conclusion.) > > What possibly should have occurred, is that I should have realized that > there was still active discussion on this topic, and declared the case > not-converged yet and either let it run or asked for more time. > > If anyone has been offended or otherwise upset by this, then I sincerely > apologize. I promise to try to be more cognizant of the necessity of > separating these two things (my subjective opinions on the issues at > hand, versus an objective judgment of case convergence) in the future. > > That said, I don't think it is fair to penalize the project team for my > error here, and I really do believe that that the case should be closed > approved now. Certainly no other members asked for more time at the > meeting, so I suspect moving forward is not an unreasonable course of > action from this point on. > > Again, sorry. > > - Garrett
Garrett, Since this was addressed To: me, I think I need to respond. I agree that this is off topic for the case, so I have removed the case number from the Subject: line. There is certainly no need to apologize to me. You explicitly asked me if I wanted to keep the case open before you went through the litany, and I said no. My last message wasn't intended to continue discussion on the case; it was just a response to a comment in your previous post where you said: >> I would support efforts to either convert this project to native Solaris >> threads, or to enhance GNU Pth to "wrap" native threads, but neither >> effort is part of this project's proposal, and IMO fall out of scope. My comments during the meeting were to determine that leaving GNU Pth as is was out of scope even though it appeared that the fact that it overlapped libpthread hadn't been considered when the one-pager was posted). I raised the point so PSARC was aware of the contradiction; not to insist that anything change. PSARC members decided that the project was complete as is and I have absolutely no problem with that. I hope that no one thought I was suggesting that GnuPG should be rewritten to use Solaris native threads. That was never my intent at any point in the discussions. If someone at Sun (or Oracle) or in the OpenSolaris community would like to rewrite the [Open]Solaris version of GNU Pth to use native Solaris threads, it would seem to be very low hanging fruit that could make any applications using Pth on Solaris-based systems run faster. (I say "very low" because it appears at first glance that several functions in Pth could be easily implemented by replacing the body of the definition of function pth_x(arglist) with nothing but a call to x(arglist) and linking with -lpthread. I'm sure it wouldn't really be this easy, but ...) Before the vote was taken, it was obvious to me that doing this is not part of this case. I was considering asking that the case be derailed just to forward a note up the chain to ask that a project to do this be funded. But, given the current climate at Sun, I didn't think it would be worth the effort. Cheers, Don
