> [F]or the same reason [a Perl developer] may need to consider (for > example) the restrictions that Zones place on packaging, and how that > affects his project, he may well have to wander outside the narrow > confines of his project to do that.
I agree. > I'm suggesting that interested parties should draw up suitable > language for such a rule, and run it as an ARC case. PSARC would > probably be a reasonable place to have it reviewed, as it's a platform > issue. I'm not sure that I see a need for these kinds of rules. If PSARC wants to review the plans for adding new runtimes to OpenSoalris, that seems reasonable. However, to tell developers that they can't use a certain language for development work seems silly. > By casting this as a (presumably pejorative) "committee decision," My comment about Z80 and COBOL was intended to be snide; however, you shouldn't presume that my comment about, "Having a committee make an implementation decsion..." was pejorative. The "C" in ARC stands for Committee, does it not? How am I to describe the decision reached by a consenus of the committee members if not as a decision made by committee? > I think you're substantially misunderstanding how our development > system actually works and disparaging the work of those who > participate in the process. This kind of attack is inappropriate. I participate in this process and am not disparaging anybody's work. You don't have to agree with my opinion, but at least be respectful. -j _______________________________________________ opensolaris-code mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
