On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 02:21:08PM -0800, Darren Reed wrote: > Nicolas Williams wrote: > >On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 01:11:17PM -0800, Darren Reed wrote: > >>James Carlson wrote: > >What's in it for us? It sounds like a waste of time. > > It satisfies the desire at Sun to no longer do any work on it whilst > keeping it available for those that "need it."
Simply not doing any work on it and leaving it as-is, where it is (ONNV) does the same! :) > >OpenSolaris is [mostly] open source, snoop is in the open source part of > >OpenSolaris. That should be enough. > > Except that all changes to anything on opensolaris need to come from or > go through someone at Sun. Isn't that a temporary matter? At some point I'd expect that non-Sun folks will be able to use WebRTI and do Mercurial pushes to ONNV (not including usr/closed) just like anyone at Sun, provided they've signed the contributor agreement. > >What is the "everything" that we've got to gain by doing this? Why > >isn't snoop's presence in ONNV sufficiently "open source"? > > So it is dead but we want to keep it in the source code tree for > opensolaris. We don't dare remove it because there are scripts that > exist that rely on it. We don't want to add new features to it > because there are better tools more worthy. So we're left with > this... thing... that rots. > > IMHO, the current situation is far sillier than what I'm suggesting. IMO, if anyone wants to play with snoop and add features, _they_ can do the work of extracting it from ONNV, making it build outside ONNV (including without making use of any non-Public interfaces), and putting it up on Sourceforge/wherever. Nico -- _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
