Guys, I thought we agreed that when the discussion thread gets this long, we take it off the list and set some time aside at a meeting.
-- mark Joseph Kowalski wrote: > John Plocher wrote: > >> Joseph Kowalski wrote: >> >>> As other posts have suggested, we need to decide what the appropriate >>> group >>> of utilities to do as subprojects is appropriate. >>> >> I disagree that "we == PSARC" for that case. Give guidance, yes, but >> it is not PSARC's job to make the final decision. >> > > Agreed. (I guess that parses as I'm agreeing with your disagreement > with me. Does that make me "disagreeable"? Uh, don't answer that.) > > However, I'll also point out this isn't a community decision either. > > It is a distro decision. > > >>> My "Rome" is all versions of the same basic utilities: */bin/*awk, >>> */bin/*grep,... (well, >>> maybe an exception for oawk). >>> >> You have already asserted (in the CLIP case) that the GNU utilities are >> in a different CLIP 'burb than the Sun/POSIX ones - you can't use CLIP to >> justify both positions. >> >> Either they are the same "Rome", in which case they need to follow >> the same CLI design pattern, or they aren't, in which case they >> don't need to be treated the same 64-bit way. >> > > You are taking this *way* to literal. The point is that there needs to > be partitioning. The axis of partitioning is open for discussion. > > >> It's a fasttrack. Times out next Friday. I won't be able to make next >> week's Wed PSARC meeting. >> > > Thanks. > > - jek3 > > _______________________________________________ > opensolaris-arc mailing list > opensolaris-arc at opensolaris.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-arc/attachments/20080530/a5a6feb0/attachment.html>
