>At this point, it is clear you guys were not paying attention >to the contents of the thread. The disagreement is over the >community having the ability to work on a branch that is not >stable. All of the Solaris releases would be on a stable branch >that has the exact same interface stability requirements as it >does right now, for the same reasons that you described. The >difference is that the community *outside* Sun can do visible >work within OpenSolaris rather than having to create private >forks of the community, and Sun could back-port the compatible >portions of that work to the stable tree according to its own >review processes.
I have no problems with that; our current model has such branches generally invisible to the population at large (except in case such as dtrace, zones, where visibility was much greater). I don't have any issue with that; but since so many of us misunderstood the context of the thread, this clarificiation was absolutely necessary. >If you think OpenSolaris in its entirety should be limited to >what is essentially a single stable branch of revision control, >then you should include that up front in all of the governance >work and it should have been a primary component of all the >marketing efforts that Sun has made about this project. No; I don't think that, though I'd expect much of the unstable work not to happen on OpenSolaris .org Casper _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
