Anup Sekhar wrote:
> On Dec 5, 2008, at 12:10 PM, Mike.Sullivan at sun.com wrote:
>
>
>>> From sfwnv-discuss-bounces at opensolaris.org Fri Dec 5 11:44:00 2008
>>>
>>>> What does all this have to do with "code review?" Porting LaTeX is
>>>> out
>>>> of the scope for this project. We are trying to do the right thing
>>>> here
>>>> by trying to integrate a highly useful FOSS piece into OpenSolaris.
>>>> Piling on requirements like these are only going to delay or stop
>>>> the
>>>> project altogether. Are you sure that's what want?
>>>>
>>> I'm 100% with Anup here. There is no chance what so ever that this
>>> group will port latex just beause the pyOpenSSL docs are in tex
>>> format.
>>>
>>> If the SFW C-Team requires this I will go as high up the management
>>> chain as I need to to get it overruled.
>>>
>> ok. Though you probably should ask them first if it's a requirement,
>> before you threaten as I don't believe I've heard it being one.
>>
>
> Well, it seemed like Jim was speaking more on behalf of the C-team in
> this case. I am still at a loss as to what this particular issue he
> raised had to do with "code" review.
>
While most of the C-Team members read and comment on this forum
regularly, we don't all read every message on the forum. If you want
the C-Team to provide input or direction, you are welcome to ask the
C-Team to comment at any time via sfw_cteam-ext at sun.com.
>
>> Certainly compiling code is. For docs I don't remember even being
>> asked that. I'd hope the projects would look at the docs and what
>> they need and decide whether the precreated docs are fine or they
>> need to generate them. Certainly I'd never tell anyone to go port
>> some form of TeX, I think I'd risk not being able to patch
>> documentation
>> easily.
>>
>
> Cool. Thanks for clarifying, Mike. This project is due for a C-team
> review next week and we can clarify anything else regarding this at
> that time.
>
As Mike has pointed out, we will require that the code be built. As far
as the docs go, if the package contains adequate, pre-built docs that
you can deliver and not have to rebuild them, you can do so. If they
don't contains adequate pre-built docs, we would want a plan for
delivering documentation. It may involve a phased delivery with a
commitment to deliver all of the phases. It may be that you would want
to hold your delivery until you have addressed the docs. I don't know,
I haven't looked at this at all. That's something we can discuss at the
C-Team review. What we would like to avoid is a partial delivery of a
component without a plan and commitment to complete the project.
-Norm
