Joerg Schilling wrote:
> "Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> On Jan 4, 2008 4:56 PM, Joerg Schilling
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> "Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Compatibility must be useful to be valuable, compatibility with
>>>> unfinalised OpenSolaris distributions isn't very useful, while
>>>> compatibility with Solaris is extremely useful given ISV support.
>>>>
>>> Fine, then "Solaris Express" behavior cannot create facts as this is
>>> an unfinalized distribution.
>>>
>> At last check, it didn't. Rather, the ARC process and integration does
>> instead.
>>
>
> AFAIK, the ARC process is not an "opensolaris process". It is a "Sun Solaris"
> process. See a mail thread from Roy Fielding 2-3 weeks ago.
>
>
Huh? I don't know about that previous thread, but most ARC activities
are in the open now, and public participation is invited. Not sure how
they could be more open. (Yes, there are closed cases, just as there is
closed source. But that's becoming quite the exception, and folks are
quick to question whether a case really needs to be closed when one is
brought forward now.) Open-by-default is now the norm.
You could have a separate ARC that operates exclusively in the open, but
you can't keep Sun from having architectural discussions behind closed
doors if it wants to. (Though in theory we could say that those
discussions carry no weight when integrating into OpenSolaris.) Until
you can eliminate usr/closed, you cannot eliminate closed ARC cases
altogether.)
-- Garrett
>
>
> Jörg
>
>
_______________________________________________
driver-discuss mailing list
driver-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/driver-discuss
