On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 01:24:01AM +0100, Roland Mainz wrote: > 2) a reasonable plan gets accepted how we can prevent the ksh93 codebase > from being overrun with Solaris-specific changes which are not submitted > to upstream
The plan for this is vigilance by people who are knowledgable and care, and the sanity of the CRT, as David explained. You ask why this didn't work for Motif, CDE, and ksh88. I can't say much about the first two, except that as they're not part of ON, they are not known to have the same rigorous integration requirements that ON does. As to the last example, David explained this as well -- ksh88 was integrated at a time long preceding the open source movement and any serious consideration of compatibility between Solaris and other operating systems, at least in this particular instance. I think that we are all much more aware of these sorts of issues now, twenty years later, than we were then, and are far less likely to deviate arbitrarily from the original source. If we do, the damage is unlikely to last long. And to that point -- you are not permitted to back code out of the gate, even when you do have write privileges, unless asked to do so by the gatekeepers. We cannot get into warring cycles of changes and reversions (cf wikipedia). You certainly can ask the gatekeepers for a reversion, and we'll do it, with merit. I don't think I've seen an unreasonable backout request yet (except the occasional frustrated outburst from a gate staff member). Your vigilance should be enough to make sure that divergence doesn't happen arbitrarily. Like David said, any RTI for a ksh change that doesn't include you as a code reviewer should be suspect. Alternately, once we've opened the RTI process, you could be a perfectly good candidate for the CRT, with a specialty of ksh (though that's up to the CRT, not me). Danek _______________________________________________ opensolaris-code mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
