John Plocher writes: > James Carlson wrote: > > Cyril Plisko writes: > >> On 1/9/07, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > ... lots of thoughtful stuff ... > > I don't understand where this view that OpenSolaris > Communities don't have releases came from.
It's a source base. What's the "release model" for a source base that has no delivery mechanism? Yes, having all of the distributions agree to a single release schedule for all of Open Solaris does help resolve some of the issues, but I disagree that it's a complete solution. In particular, this part: > (and, of course, Sun's PACs now need to decide whether they > want to use these component releases as-is, or modify them in > some way, say by adding "closed sources" or deleting "unwanted > features".) seems flimsy to me. The range of activity permitted by the PACs is quite constrained, because the type of release and thus primary release content is set elsewhere. > The alternative is unsupportable: "We built our distro on > the OpenSolaris.ON Snapshot taken from Joerg's personal > development workspace at 14:30PST on Wed Afternoon, Jan 17, > 2007, as modified by Roland to have some of, but not all of > the AST component suite...". Yes, I agree that this is a nightmare. It's exactly this sort of fork that is the destiny of any distribution that doesn't agree to the community-determined release type. For example, if the PAC decides it wants to have a radical new Major release, but the community wants to stick with Minors or smaller because they are more conservative, we have a conflict we can't resolve. Are they aware of the implications? -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 _______________________________________________ opensolaris-code mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
