Actually it wasn't addressed to just you. There are other folks talking
on the alias, who largely are sharing your opinion. In any case,
thanks for your support.
- Garrett
Don Cragun wrote:
> 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
>
>
