>>>>> "Roland" == Roland Mainz <roland.mainz at nrubsig.org> writes:
Alan> OS/Net is a Consolidation, ksh93 is a Project. If you wanted free
Alan> reign to use throughout OS/Net, it would be Consolidation Private,
Alan> not just Project Private.
Roland> Unless we move the matching tools (e.g. "pwd", "sleep" etc.) to
Roland> the ksh93-integration project, right ? :-)
Roland> CC:'ing Mike Kupfer for help since at least "sleep" is one of
Roland> the near-term projects which follows almost immediately after
Roland> the initial ksh93-integration putback...
Restructuring various standalone commands to have a tighter binding to
ksh93 is certainly something that we've talked about, but not in much
detail ("future work"). Based on hallway conversations, I expect such a
restructuring to be controversial. So I'd prefer not to spend much time
on this right now--it's likely to end up generating a lot of email and
taking time away from the initial integration work.
That said, I do have a few high-level comments about any restructuring
work.
First, it should be a full ARC case, not a fast-track. And you probably
want to start with an inception review. This would happen early in the
work--you might want to have a proof-of-concept implemented, but not
much more than that. This is to minimize the amount of work that would
have to be redone (or thrown away) if the ARC doesn't agree with your
approach.
Second, while the case can cover just "sleep", it should provide enough
information to show that you have a workable plan for other commands.
Third, using the Project Private stability level to justify the
restructuring is the tail wagging the dog[1]. The restructuring needs
to make sense on its own. Changing the stability level from Project
Private to Consolidation Private is trivial.
mike
[1] My Cassell's dictionary translates this as "Das Unbedeutendste ist
am Ruder".
