John Plocher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I can imagine two different proposals coming out of this discussion:
>
>       A) We should develop an extension to ksh93 that allows it to be used
>          as a "Stable" replacement for ksh88 in places where backwards
>          compatibility is required (i.e, such as when invoked as /bin/ksh)
>          while exposing all the latest features when compatibility is not
>          required (such as when it is involved as /bin/ksh93).  This new
>          shell would expose the following interfaces:
>               /bin/ksh        Stable
>               /bin/ksh93      Stable
>
>       or
>
>       B) We should make an incompatible change to the existing Stable ksh
>          interfaces provided by a binary-only closed source component.  This
>          proposal would replace the existing ksh (ksh88) with an unmodified
>          ksh93. This new shell would expose the following interfaces:
>               /bin/ksh (ksh88) Obsolete/Removed (was Stable)
>               /bin/ksh (ksh93) Stable
>
> If this were an ARC review, one of the proposals would be formally
> submitted for review and commitment.  As the discussion of the merits
> and risks of the proposal progressed, I would hope that the core value
> of "avoiding gratuitous incompatible changes to Stable interfaces"
> would be in everyone's mind.  After the dust settled and a formal
> opinion was rendered, I would expect the following results:
>
>       Proposal A:  Approved for a minor release of OpenSolaris/ON
>       -or-

                Denied because it is not a possible solution for OpenSolaris.

>       Proposal B:  There are three possible outcomes, of which B.3 is
>                    the most likely:
>                       B.1) Denied because of the incompatibilities, or
>                       B.2) Approved for release in a Major incompatible 
> release
>                            of OpenSolaris/ON (at Sun, such a release could be
>                            expected to happen soon after hell froze over :-)
>                            It may be that the CAB/community might decide to
>                            go down this route; I hope we don't.
>                       B.3) Approved for a minor release of OpenSolaris/ON 
> with a
>                            "Technical Change Required" to the spec to provide 
> a
>                            compatibility mode, such as in Proposal A.

Now try to weighten the proposals again.

We cannot agree on any solution that is incompatible with OpenSolaris.


Jörg

-- 
 EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       [EMAIL PROTECTED]                (uni)  
       [EMAIL PROTECTED]        (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Jörg

-- 
 EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       [EMAIL PROTECTED]                (uni)  
       [EMAIL PROTECTED]        (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Reply via email to