On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 12:39 PM, Darren J Moffat <Darren.Moffat at sun.com> wrote: > Garrett D'Amore wrote: > > Ah, but there is an important consideration here. Our (Sun/OpenSolaris) > > ability to properly provide support for CVS is somewhat limited (both > > because of limitations in CVS itself, and because we don't use it > > ourselves, and because there is little community support remaining for > > it). I therefore think we do ourselves and our users a service if we > > gently point out that there are newer alternatives which will be better > > supported (by us), and which are free of some of the worst of the > > limitations in CVS. > > The counter argument to this being we would likely be the only vendor > putting in such a statement. Does RHEL have one ? Does Ubuntu ? Does > SuSE ? Does AIX ? Does HP-UX ? Does MacOS X ? etc etc ? > > I personally don't think we should be vandalising upstream man pages > like this.
>From what I've seen, other vendors tend to use the repository something comes from to indicate its supported status. For example, Ubuntu puts everything "officially unsupported" into their universe repositories (IIRC). I agree with Darren's sentiment here. It seems wrong to do anything that could be perceived as somehow "disparaging" or otherwise implication that the software is bad. I think a simple support status indicator of "yes" or "no" would be preferable. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so." - Robert Orben
