On Mar 8, 2008, at 4:06 PM, Martin Bochnig wrote:
> If such a CG is needed, then this name makes the most sense.
I prefer "Community-Supported Platforms" to "New Platforms" as it makes
clear that:
1) The ports will largely be performed by the Community, not directly
by Sun engineers (though Sun may aid in providing reference code or
reference ports for certain platforms.)
2) The ports will be maintained by the Community, not directly by Sun
engineers (though Sun may aid in maintaining certain reference
ports.)
3) Someday some platforms will not be "new." For example, after the
PowerPC port is completed and maintained for a number of years, does
it still belong in a Community called "New Platforms?"
Don't get me wrong, changes made to OpenSolaris to enhance the
portability
of common code will make it back into the ON tree, but processor-
specific
code for ARM, PowerPC, etc. will NOT go back into Solaris as a product.
The reality is, Sun does not have an infinite number of engineers nor
an infinite number of resources for testing. Solaris will be developed
for certain SPARC and x86/x64 platforms, and that code will be released
into the OpenSolaris tree.
Thus once Community-provided platform code is accepted back into the
OpenSolaris tree, Sun engineers will do what they can to not break
the Community ports, but Sun will also not do any testing of the
Community platforms nor any maintenance of them. That will be the
responsibility of the Community.
So while that does mean a perpetual maintenance train, it's also rather
similar to the way Linux is maintained. The core Linux maintainers
maintain the x86 tree, and it's up to the leaders of the various port
communities to maintain the associated code for ARM, MIPS, PPC, SPARC,
etc.
That is the model we intend to emulate for OpenSolaris with the
"Community-Supported Platforms" Community.
William Kucharski
