* Dennis Clarke <blastwave at gmail.com> [2007-05-05 13:27]: > On 5/5/07, Lukas Rovensky <lukas.rovensky at sun.com> wrote: > > So, I know about advantages and disadvantages of SFW as well as of > > the real problems we (Solaris sustaining) have to solve. > > ? I don't see that you have anything to solve related to this > discussion. ? > > > (Note for Brian -- in general every fix for Solaris XY goes first to > > Nevada and then it is integrated to Solaris 10, 9, ... and this is > > true not only for ON but also for SFW.) > > Again, that looks to be some sort of Sun Microsystems Inc thing > related to the commercial distribution called Solaris.
We haven't really talked about the long term support of the various consolidations in an open development regime, but I would prefer that we not have the discussion cut off with some preemptive classification as a "Sun-only problem". It would be more appropriate to treat Lukas as a contributor, employed by an organization with an interest in OpenSolaris, who will specifically be interested in addressing deficits in one or more integrated freeware collections on *previous* releases of those collections. That is, once the decision to close Nevada's associated source trees is made, and the bulk of development moves to the "after Nevada" release, there will still be community members interested in Nevada-delivered freeware being maintained (but not necessarily updated to a new minor version) in accordance with the interface commitments given at the time of integration. How those source trees are run is a critical component of an open development process; how the updated products of those trees are delivered is a necessary aspect of any proposal for software distribution. - Stephen
