Roland Mainz wrote: > Joseph Kowalski wrote: > >> Glenn Skinner wrote: >> > [snip] > >>> ## Part 1.1: Update of ksh93 >>> The 1.1 portion of this project is the update of ksh93 from >>> ast-ksh.2007-12-15 to ast-ksh-2008-05-22 which marks the update >>> from ksh93 version 's+' to version 't-' (AST/ksh93 uses the >>> (latin) alphabet for its version number, e.g. version 'a', >>> version 'b' etc. ; the '+'/'-' means the stabilty status, e.g. >>> '-' means its "alpha", no suffix means its "stable" (e.g. ready >>> for production usage) and '+' means its a bugfixed stable version >>> etc.). >>> >>> Are we to infer from this nomenclature description that ksh's >>> stability level is decreasing as part of this case? >>> >> I read it as "we don't integrate '-' versions into Solaris". Did I >> guess right? >> > > Grumpf... IMO it depends what the '-' means - see > http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ksh93-integration-discuss/2008-May/006127.html > for the testing we do right now for ksh93... >
Testing isn't the issue. By assigning the '-' suffix the community is asserting "not ready for prime time". We should believe them and not consider integration into the OpenSolaris trunk. This seems very obvious to me. I would guess that the community wouldn't flinch about changing an interface which first appeared in a '-' release. Seems the reason for having such releases. Perhaps this is a C-team issue, more than an ARC issue, but regardless, such integrations should not occur. - jek3
