On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 9:43 AM, William Kucharski
<William.Kucharski at sun.com> wrote:
>
> 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?"
William,
why should the community naming at opensolaris.org reflect productisation
plans of a single commercial body ? It may also suggest that community
somehow doesn't support current SPARC and x86 ports, which would
be odd.
If tomorrow some company XYZ will decide to pure money into
a (non-SPARC and non-x86) port, does that mean that such port
should be removed from "Community-supported platforms" ?
I think we just need to call it "platforms" (I would prefer "archs"
[ for architectures ] personally, but that will inevitably clash with ARC).
--
Regards,
Cyril
