Re: [cab-discuss] Re: Reforming the OpenSolaris project integration process (was:Re: [osol-discuss] how to make a new project?)
>I know this popped up because of my last bundle of PCFS bugfixes (which >actually unintentionally made PCFS behave like Windows does ... and that >immediately caused a flurry of bug reports how much breakage this causes >because there are expectations towards PCFS beyond the capabilities of the >underlaying FAT specification ...) but I don't understand in which context >this is project/CAB-related ? No, it's about a long time ago when long filenames were added to Solaris and when the original proposed "foldcase" option would only fold case of the 8.3 filenames (as windows does) but the ARC insisted on foldcase to also fold the long file names which was silly as those are case preserving. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [cab-discuss] Re: Reforming the OpenSolaris project integration process (was:Re: [osol-discuss] how to make a new project?)
>Is there any other Open Source project which has similar bureaucracy >requirements? The integration of ksh93 is an item which the average >Linux distribution does in days or weeks while OpenSolaris.org needs 8 >months to present another list of bureaucracy items which still need >to be finished. I think it is excessive to the point of mental injury >that such a simple project gets delayed by a factor of 40. ksh93 was not added to Linux; it exists as packages in Linux distributions. Try adding something to the Linux Kernel. >Applying the same bureaucracy to other projects will lead to the >destruction of OpenSolaris.org. I predict that either the number of >contributors will cease or a full fork of OpenSolaris.org (the whole >organisation, not the Solaris kernel) may appear, drawing all >attention and contributors to the new project ksh93 is progressing nicely and the persons complaining have not yet said which projects of their own they are now delaying. As others have said, people want Solaris because of architectural stability; the price we pay is the ARC process. It is not ideal, but we haven't figured out a better way. Or can you explain why putting ksh93 in /sbin is better or what was wrong about the outcome of the ARC discussions? Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [cab-discuss] Re: Reforming the OpenSolaris project integration process (was:Re: [osol-discuss] how to make a new project?)
Frank Hofmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I know this popped up because of my last bundle of PCFS bugfixes (which > actually unintentionally made PCFS behave like Windows does ... and that > immediately caused a flurry of bug reports how much breakage this causes > because there are expectations towards PCFS beyond the capabilities of the > underlaying FAT specification ...) but I don't understand in which context The problem with MS-WIN is that it does not seem to create a vfat dir entry in case a name is something like "README". Solaris was the only OS that handled pcfs in a useful way with resprct to character cases. 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
Re: [cab-discuss] Re: Reforming the OpenSolaris project integration process (was:Re: [osol-discuss] how to make a new project?)
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [ ... ] There are sparcs flying and sometimes disagreement; but in the end There's this picture in my mind now of CAB members grabbing whatever piece of Sun workstation hardware in reach and hurling it at each other... :) the projects generally improve where they are changed (though there are obviously counter examples such as how "pcfs" deals with file name case) ? I know this popped up because of my last bundle of PCFS bugfixes (which actually unintentionally made PCFS behave like Windows does ... and that immediately caused a flurry of bug reports how much breakage this causes because there are expectations towards PCFS beyond the capabilities of the underlaying FAT specification ...) but I don't understand in which context this is project/CAB-related ? FrankH. "It may be your project, but it is NOT your OpenSolaris/Solaris". Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [cab-discuss] Re: Reforming the OpenSolaris project integration process (was:Re: [osol-discuss] how to make a new project?)
On 10/18/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 10/18/06, Josh Hurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 10/18/06, James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Josh Hurst writes: >> > > On 10/17/06, maoyi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > > I want to post my 4over6 code.How? >> > > > >> > > > 4over6 is a project that makes ipv4 packets go through ipv6 network. >> > > I suggest that you wait until the ksh93 integration project is done >> > > with it's work. The project suffers from excessive bureaucracy >> > > overhead and in my opinion a discussion should be started to >> > > streamline the project integration process. The current process has >> > > become unbearable and this needs to be corrected before new projects >> > > are launched >> > >> > Your fear-mongering is completely misplaced just plain unacceptable. >> Please understand that I am trying to start a generalised discussion >> whether all this bureaucracy is REQUIRED. No other Open Source project >> requires this kind of excessive bureaucracy overhead. >> >> I do not feel very well that I have to kickstart this discussion but I >> think the excessive delays in the ksh93 integration project are no >> longer bearable and require at least a look at the general process. >> >> I'd like to start a constructive discussion about the problems because >> a reform is overdue >I've added the CAB discussion list to the CC: for comments. IMO the >problem should be discussed before any new projects are started. We >need a new, streamlined process which makes sure that projects are no >longer trashed with excessive bureaucracy This is assuming that there is a problem; three CAB members did take part in the development process discussions (Al, Rich and me) and I don't think we so fault in it. Of course, we're all Solaris/Sun fanboys and believe that the way in which we architect and develop is "The One True Way(TM)". Is there any other Open Source project which has similar bureaucracy requirements? The integration of ksh93 is an item which the average Linux distribution does in days or weeks while OpenSolaris.org needs 8 months to present another list of bureaucracy items which still need to be finished. I think it is excessive to the point of mental injury that such a simple project gets delayed by a factor of 40. Applying the same bureaucracy to other projects will lead to the destruction of OpenSolaris.org. I predict that either the number of contributors will cease or a full fork of OpenSolaris.org (the whole organisation, not the Solaris kernel) may appear, drawing all attention and contributors to the new project -- Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [cab-discuss] Re: Reforming the OpenSolaris project integration process (was:Re: [osol-discuss] how to make a new project?)
>On 10/18/06, Josh Hurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 10/18/06, James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Josh Hurst writes: >> > > On 10/17/06, maoyi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > > I want to post my 4over6 code.How? >> > > > >> > > > 4over6 is a project that makes ipv4 packets go through ipv6 network. >> > > I suggest that you wait until the ksh93 integration project is done >> > > with it's work. The project suffers from excessive bureaucracy >> > > overhead and in my opinion a discussion should be started to >> > > streamline the project integration process. The current process has >> > > become unbearable and this needs to be corrected before new projects >> > > are launched >> > >> > Your fear-mongering is completely misplaced just plain unacceptable. >> Please understand that I am trying to start a generalised discussion >> whether all this bureaucracy is REQUIRED. No other Open Source project >> requires this kind of excessive bureaucracy overhead. >> >> I do not feel very well that I have to kickstart this discussion but I >> think the excessive delays in the ksh93 integration project are no >> longer bearable and require at least a look at the general process. >> >> I'd like to start a constructive discussion about the problems because >> a reform is overdue >I've added the CAB discussion list to the CC: for comments. IMO the >problem should be discussed before any new projects are started. We >need a new, streamlined process which makes sure that projects are no >longer trashed with excessive bureaucracy This is assuming that there is a problem; three CAB members did take part in the development process discussions (Al, Rich and me) and I don't think we so fault in it. Of course, we're all Solaris/Sun fanboys and believe that the way in which we architect and develop is "The One True Way(TM)". The Solaris architecture meetings take some getting used to, I grant you that; and my reaction when first confronted with them was pretty much like yours. "It's my project and I cry if I want to" but I have now reached the state of enlightenment. As a person with previous experience I believe that the whole ksh93 discussion was a text book example of how such things happen. There are sparcs flying and sometimes disagreement; but in the end the projects generally improve where they are changed (though there are obviously counter examples such as how "pcfs" deals with file name case) "It may be your project, but it is NOT your OpenSolaris/Solaris". Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
