Joerg Schilling wrote: > Joseph Kowalski <jek3 at sun.com> wrote: > > >> Joerg Schilling wrote: >> >>> Joseph Kowalski <jek3 at sun.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Joerg Schilling wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Is there a chance that you come to reality? >>>>> >>>>> The case PSARC/2004/480 has not been made for fun but because there is a >>>>> _need_ >>>>> to integrate star into Solaris. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Reality is that *you* need to drive star integration. >>>> >>>> I tried. You want to integrate a star which provides interfaces beyond >>>> those >>>> >>>> >>> You tried but then you told me that you lack the time for more help. >>> >>> >> I *may* have said this about being a sponsor -- I don't exactly recall -- I >> suspect you might be right. There certainly was a lack of sponsors at >> that time. >> >> However, I never said I wouldn't sponsor the fast-track to add the new >> features. >> > > I thought that we first need to get it in. >
Well sure,... you can either review the newer features or disable them in such a delivery. Including the newer features in the delivery without them being reviewed/approved is not an option. Actually, disabling them might not be a bad idea. If I remember the newer features, not providing them would disappoint some users, but I think only a small number. I'd guess the biggest disappointment would be the "Solaris is *still* behind the times" background noise. - jek3
