I'm unconvinced that the "tools" are at fault here.
I think the problem is more related to differing expectations from ARC
participants. On one hand there is pressure to ensure that
(Open)Solaris is an integrated system and that all the pieces play well
together without major gaps. (I.e. that each piece contributes to some
higher level "architectural vision".) On the other hand, there seems to
be pressure to integrate as much FOSS as possible, with as little change
as possible.
These camps are often diametrically opposed, and several of the recent
cases I think are the best illustration of that.
ARC review of the first camp is critical should be required. ARC review
of stuff from the second camp may be painful at worst, and is probably
meaningless at best.
Hence, I believe that we need a way to separate software/repositories so
that both camps can be satisfied -- a well integrated, architecturally
clean core, with a readily accessible set of possibly less-well
integrated FOSS. (A cleaner and clearer division than we currently have
with ON and SFW, for example.) IMO, the division needs to be visible to
a system administrator (and possibly, but not necessarily, user), as well.
-- Garrett
Torrey McMahon wrote:
> Before anyone asks I pulled off the psarc-ext alias. :)
>
> Outside of the process argument in general I think its clear we need a
> better set of tools. I made the same argument at arc-chairs years ago
> before opensoalaris, opensource, the huge set of FOSS was being
> packaged up, etc.
>
> Joseph Kowalski wrote:
>>
>> Back to the SDF, there weren't supposed to be any documents that were
>> just for ARC review. The documents were supposed to just "fall out"
>> of other requirements.
>>
>> This never quite worked for a number of reasons. A large one was
>> that the functional spec was too high level and the design spec was
>> probably too detailed.
>>
>> Anyway, all that I'm pointing is out the process is *supposed* to be
>> as light weight as possible and part of that is to accept a wide
>> range of possible materials. Maybe this doesn't work anymore, but I
>> still think the process should be as light of a weight a process as
>> possible for the submitter.
>>
>> That said, the recent flurries of mail seem to indicate that "there
>> must be a better way".
>
>
