Alan DuBoff writes:
On Tuesday 03 April 2007 10:18 am, James Carlson wrote:
My guess is that we'll eventually need community-level decisions on
when major releases are needed and will have to deal with the gate
issues at that time.
Why so?
When the first major release binding project
* John Plocher [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-04-03 11:09]:
James Carlson wrote:
You've got me. I've pointed out the seeming inconsistency before on
other threads, but John Plocher seems to think that it's not a
problem.
Uhmmm...
I believe it is Stephen Hahn who is driving this OS.o isn't a
On Wednesday 04 April 2007 05:18 am, James Carlson wrote:
When the first major release binding project integrates, we've got a
problem. Those who still want to create minor releases will
essentially be unable to do so. At best, they'll be able to fork the
source at that point, and just hope
Alan DuBoff writes:
On Wednesday 04 April 2007 05:18 am, James Carlson wrote:
When the first major release binding project integrates, we've got a
problem. Those who still want to create minor releases will
essentially be unable to do so. At best, they'll be able to fork the
source at
Alan DuBoff wrote:
On Tuesday 03 April 2007 11:09 am, John Plocher wrote:
But that's nothing more than some arbitrary mojo to say, today this is
v5.11.
At some point we (OS.o, not Sun) will wish to produce a named milestone
release so that it can go on and try something new. Up till now, the
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Mark J. Nelson wrote:
1. Rename OpenSolaris ON Community to OSNet
This change is actually an artifact of the community/project shared
namespace on os.o. It's a confusing annoyance, but really this
community should be where the on-gate project lives, and that project
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Stephen Lau wrote:
Mark J. Nelson wrote:
7. I haven't figured out what will be needed in the way of an on-discuss
mailing list. We traditionally have not had such a beast inside Sun,
though on-all has occasionally been [discuss]used in this fashion.
Anybody got an
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Eric Boutilier wrote:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Mark J. Nelson wrote:
1. Rename OpenSolaris ON Community to OSNet
This change is actually an artifact of the community/project shared
namespace on os.o. It's a confusing annoyance, but really this
community should be where
Eric Boutilier wrote:
Re-thinking this... OSNet maybe needs to be designated special status in
the OpenSolaris Community/Project structure. It's neither fish nor fowl.
We don't want to encourage forking at the core (kernel) level, therefore we
don't need an umbrella kernel community (which is
Valerie Anne Bubb writes:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Mark J. Nelson wrote:
3. Rename Steve's onnv-gate repository to on-gate
...and put it under the ON Project. This shouldn't be tied to Nevada;
when it's time to worry about releasing Nevada, then the onnv-gate (or
maybe even on11-gate)
James Carlson wrote:
Valerie Anne Bubb writes:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Mark J. Nelson wrote:
3. Rename Steve's onnv-gate repository to on-gate
...and put it under the ON Project. This shouldn't be tied to Nevada;
when it's time to worry about releasing Nevada, then the onnv-gate (or
maybe
James Carlson wrote:
Valerie Anne Bubb writes:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Mark J. Nelson wrote:
3. Rename Steve's onnv-gate repository to on-gate
...and put it under the ON Project. This shouldn't be tied to Nevada;
when it's time to worry about releasing Nevada, then the onnv-gate (or
maybe
Alan Coopersmith writes:
James Carlson wrote:
In any event, the point where we decide to fork is our problem, not
other people's problem.
But how can we possibly have a common ARC if we all have different
releases?Do we just throw all the ARC distinctions about what you
can do in
Alan Coopersmith writes:
Note that, at least for the minor release binding typically used in
Solaris, it doesn't matter. All that other distributions need to do
is pick a point in time, start a branch, and they're good to go.
Everything that went in up to that point is already known to
Re-thinking this... OSNet maybe needs to be designated special status in
the OpenSolaris Community/Project structure. It's neither fish nor fowl.
We don't want to encourage forking at the core (kernel) level,
But we do...
This is exactly what releases are - the future development efforts
James Carlson wrote:
You've got me. I've pointed out the seeming inconsistency before on
other threads, but John Plocher seems to think that it's not a
problem.
Uhmmm...
I believe it is Stephen Hahn who is driving this OS.o isn't a
distro, doesn't do releases and is somehow not connected to
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Eric Boutilier wrote:
Re-thinking this... OSNet maybe needs to be designated special status in
the OpenSolaris Community/Project structure. It's neither fish nor fowl.
We don't want to encourage forking at the core (kernel) level, therefore
we
don't
Eric Boutilier wrote:
Re-thinking this... OSNet maybe needs to be designated special status in
the OpenSolaris Community/Project structure. It's neither fish nor fowl.
We don't want to encourage forking at the core (kernel) level, therefore we
don't need an umbrella kernel community (which is
John Plocher writes:
James Carlson wrote:
You've got me. I've pointed out the seeming inconsistency before on
other threads, but John Plocher seems to think that it's not a
problem.
Uhmmm...
I believe it is Stephen Hahn who is driving this OS.o isn't a
distro, doesn't do releases
On Tuesday 03 April 2007 10:18 am, James Carlson wrote:
My guess is that we'll eventually need community-level decisions on
when major releases are needed and will have to deal with the gate
issues at that time.
Why so?
What if the train just kept rolling and the distributions were
On Tuesday 03 April 2007 11:09 am, John Plocher wrote:
Having Nexenta, Schillix, BeliniX and Solaris distros all based on
a OS.O OS/Netv5.11 release means that ISVs, Blastwaves and other
application providers can all take advantage of a common baseline;
users could choose between the various
C-Team
Consolidation Team: the release team managing a specific Consolidation.
So, before I start with the PSARC case integraition policy -
1. ON C-Team - who are these people ?
Since managing a specific Consolidation isn't really useful: this is the
group of people that review
Mark J. Nelson wrote:
7. I haven't figured out what will be needed in the way of an on-discuss
mailing list. We traditionally have not had such a beast inside Sun,
though on-all has occasionally been [ab]used in this fashion.
Anybody got an opinion on this?
I don't think we need an
Thanks, Mark... A few notes and lots of trimming :)
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Mark J. Nelson wrote:
[...]
4. How the members of the C-Team are being [s]elected ?
Selected.
An excellent question, and one that cries out for both documentation and
change. Traditionally, it's a volunteer duty, and
Hey,
Stephen Lau wrote:
Mark J. Nelson wrote:
7. I haven't figured out what will be needed in the way of an on-discuss
mailing list. We traditionally have not had such a beast inside Sun,
though on-all has occasionally been [ab]used in this fashion.
Anybody got an opinion on this?
There is an interesting thread rolling on on arc-discuss mailing list[1].
So I decided to try to take this to the [ON] consolidation level.
I wanted to discuss the open/closed PSARC case integration issue
with the ON C-Team on the ON consolidation mailing list.
Apparently, ON consolidation does
26 matches
Mail list logo
