> From: Roland Mainz <roland.mainz at nrubsig.org> ... > Well, I hoped that it is somehow possible to have more than one ARC case > for the ksh93-integration, e.g. put this version back, collect user > feedback and then implement&&ARC the necessary suggestions/changes... > which is now a little bit tricky since the profile shell is now excluded > from the case.
This paragraph may highlight some of the disconnects we've been experiencing. If I read Roland right, he wants to try things out on a consumer base and then react to the feedback. Some people positively refer to this as "Extreme Programming" while others negatively refer to it as "hack it into existence". That's not the way Solaris works, nor the way the OpenSolaris charter (from the CAB) asserts OpenSolaris should work. For projects to be integrated into the trunk, they should be as perfect as possible. The catch phrase within the ON group of Solaris is "FCS quality at all time". The interfaces *must* be right, because by our compatibility concerns they will be difficult to change later. The implementation should be as right as possible, but we know we are all human. Trying things out on a consumer base can be a good thing. We do that by making EA releases available (with very limited support guarantees and no interface stability commitments). Roland can certainly make a "full EA" ksh93 available at the same time as integrating a slightly hobbled ksh93 (no pfksh93) into the trunk. I personally encourage him to do so. Sun *may* even be able to provide some infrastructure support to make the distribution of such an EA easier - we do have a couple of servers lying around here and there. Oh yea, it certainly is possible to have a string of ksh93-integration ARC cases. Each can add new features and interfaces. What they can't do is redefine the interfaces of the previous cases. You are rather free to draw the lines between the cases, but the ARCs have been known to say "too small" and insist that a larger set of features need to be defined to make a coherent project. In this case, they are saying the opposite. They are saying that one feature set (RBAC) seems to be insufficently researched/defined, but you would have a coherent project without it (pfksh93). This is only a process suggestion. You are certainly free to withdraw the whole case and wait until the pfksh93 issues are resolved. Nobody is suggesting you do that, but as submitter you could. - cheers, - jek3
