Joerg Schilling writes: > In order to reflect the new open development for OpenSolaris, we need to > find a way that allows to have something like land register entries > that say something like: > > You are not allowed to change the behavior of his program without > an OK from the author of program xxx that is going to replace this > program soon.
First of all, I think we're now _really_ off topic for the review of this case, which has nothing to do with tar(1). If we're going to continue this thread, we need another venue. I don't think this is really an open-versus-closed issue. Open versus closed mostly has to do with who gets to participate. The issue you're bringing up is instead about how projects are coordinated, and it's an issue that comes up regardless of whether bits are open or closed. Historically, we've been reluctant to hold current projects hostage to what some future project may or may not accomplish. The usual rule is that the first one wins -- first to the ARC, or first to the gate -- and all later projects must adapt to deal with those changes. There are of course exceptions, particularly where some on-going project is taking Solaris in a good direction, but some smaller project plans to integrate something that ends up being a divergence from that path. There are judgment calls to be made, and that's what the ARC is for (and why it's important to get the ARC discussions in the open). However, unless there were some _extremely_ compelling reason to do so, I'd be unlikely to be in favor of the sort of blanket ban you seem to be suggesting. Development in Solaris isn't a matter of famous personalities, and we don't have kings who get the final say in particular areas. Instead, it's about the technology. -- James Carlson, KISS Network <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
