"Garrett D'Amore" <gdamore at opensolaris.org> wrote:
> Joerg:
>
> Just a bit of advice: disparaging the technical skill or ability of ARC
> members is not likely to win you any more friends or influence, at least
> not in this group.
Garret, I did reply this way because i had the feeling that your last mail was
not helpful at all.
If we like to move something, it does not help to be destructive but only
constructive proposals may change things. Your last mail did just repeat the
star case and this cannot help as we did already prove that the problem is at
Sun's side: it is not possible to find a sponsor.
> In general, ARC members are selected based on the fact that they are
> generally very senior, very knowledgeable engineers -- they are
> recognized technical leaders with both depth and breadth spanning more
> than one area. While they may not have expertise in *every* area
I could mention names but I intentionally don't. I think of two persons,
I will not tell more in the public as I don't attack people. Let me for this
reason remnove the rest of your ARC related text. The main problem was that my
position was not understood.
> As far as your outstanding star requests, yes, I did see that you
> finally submitted a sponsor request. I suppose some day someone might
> pick it up. Right now, working the issue isn't a priority for many
> people. (And quite honestly, comments like the ones you made below fail
> to excite some -- such as me -- to champion your case.) One of the
Comments like those you made escalate problems, I hope you understand this now.
> whether to pick up a case or not. Continuing to berate everyone at Sun
> is not a good way to convince someone to volunteer to spend the *many*
> hours that working on the star case is likely to involve.
Continuing to attack me is not a good idea.
I did already spend many days in this topic and every mail that tries to
put new fuel into the fire without showing a solution will just cement the
impression that nothing will move.
> As far as your other bugs or fixes (SCCS, or shell), I've not seen
> them. Have you filed bugs, or request-sponsor on them? Frankly if you
> have some "non-controversial" fixes or improvements, I'd be willing to
> sponsor you, if only to prove to you that it is possible. I'm not
> interested in getting involved in a politically and emotionally charged
> debate, such as the star cases, though.
The latest fixed/enhanced SCCS sources are currently available inside the
Schily Source consolidation at:
ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily/
I did fix several dozen small bugs and I added enhanced Y2000 compatibility.
I did inform interested people here and given the bad experiences with the
star integration, I like to see an expression of real interest before I
spend more time in trying to achive things that probably never happen.
It does not make sense to fill bug reports for many small bugs, as every
single case will take more time to fill than it took to fix it.
For the Bourne Shell, I did mention what I did about three weeks ago.
During the past two weeks, I did a similar code clean up as I did with
SCCS a year ago: I fixed several dozen small bugs while making the code
portable. In addition, I added a command line history editor and file name
completion and I heavily tested it on SchilliX.
Let me repeat: given the bad experiences I had with star, I am not going to
spend time in trying to integrate my code as long as there is no express of
interest at Sun's side.
J?rg
--
EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
